Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

The Bryan Singer Allegations: Let's Talk About White Male Privilege, Not Gay Culture

by Zachary Tallis
April 18, 2014 9:01 AM
  • |

Let's get two things clear. Number one, Bryan Singer has been accused of the repeated anal rape of a child. Number two, none of us can say whether or not he is guilty.

I wanted to state my first point in such bold terms because many articles have described the accusations of his accuser, Michael Egan, in softer phrasing. Language matters, and using terms like abuse and assault, particularly when talking about teenage male victims of sexual abuse, can contribute to a pervading tendency to diminish and belittle such acts. These are deeply serious allegations which, if true, can be presumed to have inflicted irreparable damage on their alleged victim.

But I'm not here to discuss whether or not they are true. Nor do I want to trawl through the stories that are emerging of a sub-culture of powerful gay men in Hollywood and the parties at which they wielded their power through sexuality. Yes, we've known about this for years, and we've known that Bryan Singer has been a big player at such events. There's plenty of evidence of behaviour of his that many, including myself, find deeply questionable. But is that proof that these latest allegations are true? No.

The truth is, you can be utterly despicable in how you use your power and privilege to determine who you get to sleep with, but that doesn't automatically make you a child rapist. And making that inference by saying "We've known about this for years" is pretty illogical.

I say all this in defence of the legal process, not Bryan Singer, believe you me. But to me, the kind of gay sub-culture being discussed is evidence not of Bryan Singer's culpability, but how a separate standard operates for powerful white men in Hollywood, gay or straight.

The worst aspect of the press coverage of Michael Egan's allegations is the suggestion that the timing is related to the release of the latest X Men sequel. A site called Movie Pilot offers a typical reaction: "Well... how about that. The timing is certainly interesting at least?", their writer comments, rather insidiously inferring some kind of hidden agenda without having the guts to state it outright.

What is the suggestion here (and all over Twitter)? That Michael Egan is somehow attempting to skewer the success of the film, or capitalize on the publicity surrounding its director? Sadly, that's hardly a likely outcome, even if it were his intention. For a start, it radically and quite nastily underestimates the emotional and psychological toll of speaking out about rape. Secondly, the truth is that a director is never more invincible than when he releases a popular film.

Why do I bring gender and race into it? Because it's currently only white male directors who our industry allows to ascend to this position of invincibility. You only need to look at a director like Spike Lee, and how often reports of his actions undermine him with derogatory "angry black man" tropes, to see that. Meanwhile, we are shamefully far from the day that the work of women directors is similarly sanctified.

Yet for Bryan Singer, there really are some who believe his films are what matter most. Beneath their article, Movie Pilot is running a horrifying poll for their readers asking "Does it change anything for you?". Here, reader, are your options:

1. Whatever happens, it's the films that matter

2. I'll await the verdict first

3. I just don't buy it

Although I was loath to participate in such a poll, I had to in order to see the results. Turns out, my choice of Option 2 was the least popular among readers, with 1 and 3 currently neck and neck. And frankly, this says it all.

The idea that anyone could even think "Whatever happens, it's the films that matter" is the real problem here. Just ask Roman Polanski, who had a child rape conviction to his name when he won his first Oscar. If you are a (white) (male) director who makes successful films, no behaviour is too damaging to derail your career. I'm not talking about allegations (which shouldn't affect anyone's reputation until proven one way or the other) but known, documented behaviour, which would utterly destroy a man's reputation were they not giving us something we want - a movie.

And please don't get me started on Wagner and anti-semitism and whether art can transcend an artist's personal life. Yes, that's a question. But this is a problem. And it's not a particular Hollywood gay subculture (unpalatable though that may be), but our wider culture, which apparently doesn't give a shit whether a director is guilty of a crime or not, so long as he - yes, he - makes a film we want to see.

This article was amended for clarification on 19th April

get email updates
  • |


  • Kevin | August 3, 2014 11:08 PMReply

    Singer's not White; he's a Jew.

    I love how here we have a classic case of a sick pedophile homosexual rapist Jew, but it still comes down to White people are evil.

    Author is a retard.

  • Raphael | April 26, 2014 11:39 PMReply

    Here in Europe - and no doubt the rest of the world - we have heard all about the accusations against Bryan Singer. And yet ... to be honest, no one has the faintest idea who he is - he has never made an appearance in our press before; nor has anyone ever heard of the accuser, Michael Egan. But the point is: the story perfectly fits a narrative beloved of the media around the world - namely, evil gay men raping boys - which is being combined with the new trope of evil gay men controlling Hollywood. The only reason we are being told about these unknown figures is because the allegations and the Hollywood context are seen as giving further evidence of the malign roles of, yes, Evil Gay Men. Singer is only mentioned in the media (here in Britain at least) because he is assumed to be guilty; there is no hint that he might have to appear before a court which might be capable of acquitting him. Meanwhile, the Singer story is being strikingly juxtaposed with the announcement of Jodie Foster's marriage - seemingly to underline a good-bad, light-dark, female-male dichotomy: lesbians are illustrious (and they don't get more illustrious than Foster), monogamous, wholesome, and adhere to the highest of morals; whereas gay men are violent rapists, i.e. ... evil. It's an interesting repeat of the Katy Perry Doctrine - girls kissing girls is cool (that is, hot), whereas telling a boy "ur so gay" marks him out as the lowest of the low.

    Interestingly, for those of us who are far from Hollywood, well, although plenty of people submitting comments below tell us that there are Jewish gay male elites who control Hollywood entirely by virtue of their, er..., Jewish gay male "privilege" - that dimension of the story is unknown in the rest of the world. Though one has to wonder: if they really do control everything in Hollywood, these "privileged" Jewish gay men, why can't we name one single out gay male actor (Jewish or Gentile!) of Foster's stature?? It's clear enough that any suggestion of gayness is seen as box office poison in the case of a (male) actor, especially in the US (whereas in Britain several of our most important male actors have come out, and it doesn't seem to have destroyed their careers) - so it's certainly a shame, to say the least, that these armies of wealthy "privileged" Jewish gay men behind the scenes (controlling everything!) aren't able to give us one single out gay male Hollywood star. Not one.

  • James | April 22, 2014 9:46 AMReply

    I don't think framing people for rape is going to do much to lessen "white male privilege." If you're going to be framed for rape because you're "privileged" (and it doesn't seem like Egan is targeting guys without any money; he has filed this kind of lawsuit before), you're only going to do whatever you can to become MORE privileged. Some people in this world make more money, and can hire better lawyers... and at this rate, I don't blame them. Lawyer up, Bryan Singer. Seems it isn't just opportunistic wannabes who are after your scalp, it's also tendentious journalists who wish to make an example of you as a warning to other rich and goodlooking young white guys, who might otherwis commit the sin of having sex with poor and good-looking YOUNGER white guys (oh, the horror, the horror!). The fact that Singer seems to like younger men (18 t0 21 by one account) seems to make him a credible pedophile to some people. But just because YOU can't tell the difference between 18 and 15 doesn't mean he can't.

  • San Fernando Curt | April 22, 2014 12:24 AMReply

    Basing this story in race, you evade key issue of class, and it's difficult to believe you don't do it deliberately. If Singer and the rest are guilty of these things, it's their wealth and influence that allowed them to sustain it, and perhaps evade punishment. It's no different whether they be rich filmmakers in Hollywood or rich Saudis in the fleshpots of Europe. Injecting race into every issue is one of the chief missteps that have rendered the American Left utterly irrelevant.

  • Mike J. | April 22, 2014 1:53 AM

    They attempted that, in 2006, when the initial allegations from the Duke lacrosse case popped up. Blamed "white male privilege" for the "rape." And remember how well THAT one worked out for them in the end?

  • bill | April 21, 2014 6:20 PMReply

    How about we talk about Jewish privilege for a change?

  • Mike J. | April 21, 2014 10:12 PM

    Well...that's how Singer got his position in Hollywood to begin with. He came from an upper-crust part of NJ and was immediately taken into that clique. I he THAT good of a director ? No.

  • JDB | April 21, 2014 10:59 AMReply

    I believe many of you are distorting the writers argument. The white privilege has to do with our perception of singer. Despite being accused of this horrible crime, many are willing to let it go since they love Singer's films. Then you look at someone like Michael Vick. Because he was black, he was immediately found guilty.

    I'm not sure if I'm buying the white privilege claim 100%. Look at Michael Jackson or Kobe Bryant. When they were accused of rape, they had many non-believers.

  • DCS | May 16, 2014 10:11 AM

    Let's not forget that time R Kelly played water-sports with a 14 year old girl. He both got away with everything and is still beloved by his fans. I'm starting to think this has nothing to do with race at all.

  • babyblue | April 20, 2014 11:35 PMReply

    Why would one not "have the guts to say" something "outright"?! Why didn't you? Somewhat ironic, dontcha think?

  • MM | April 20, 2014 9:49 AMReply

    Singer's wealth and perceived influence in Hollywood is what's given him his "privilege," not his race or his sexual preference. There are many white males in Hollywood who do not have the ability to get away with what Singer is being accused of because they don't have his level of success. In fact, I would bet many of his alleged victims were white males.

  • Eldin Reynold | April 20, 2014 7:27 AMReply

    Zachary, please learn the difference between "imply" and "infer." Thank you.

  • jamesxxxxxxxxxx | April 20, 2014 5:16 AMReply

    gay = rapist = pervert

  • Steve Lawrence | April 20, 2014 3:26 AMReply

    It's funny that the author here transcends the Jewishness of both Bryan Singer and Roman Polanksi while decrying "white" male privilege, yet summons the stones to cite (presumably, Richard) Wagner's work to be not quite beyond criticism for his personal views. That's different; that was anti-semitism. This is mere child molestation, hardly a crime in some circles of elites.

  • Days of Broken Arrows | April 19, 2014 3:53 PMReply

    If you believe in "white male privilege" then you have the look at why white men got to such a position -- when whites are actually a minority globally. And the answer to that would be that white men designed and built pretty much everything in the civilized world. They even came up with the idea of "freedom of speech" and the technology you used to get your message across. I personally think it's more complicated than that, but anyone who believes in "white male privilege," must concede that the privilege wasn't taken but earned -- and if it was "taken," doesn't that also mean white men were smart enough to take it and everyone else wasn't? So congrats to anyone who believes in this concept because you're the bigots.

  • Michael J. | April 21, 2014 11:46 AM

    Including Native Americans, who slaughtered each other in wars over land long before Europeans arrived.

  • Michael J. | April 21, 2014 11:44 AM

    Anybody complaining about white men here should get the f--k off our computer.

  • mawon | April 21, 2014 11:05 AM

    So true. White men certainly earned their privilege.... through genocide, oppression, and greed. Those smart ol' white men. Gold stars for all of you!

  • GREAT WHITE MEN | April 20, 2014 4:45 PM

    Taken and Earned is only seen through People Of Colored or White glasses-- (insert sarcasm) real talk Thank you White Man for giving us civilized society... because the math --upon which many of your inventions were created -- was created by not the GREAT WHITE MAN... We Native Americans, so grateful for you Kemosabe....SMH

  • Uhmhmm | April 19, 2014 7:44 PM

    You, Jack and Mike sound crazy. There is indeed an issue of white privilege and amazingly you 3 dismissed the idea and fact of it then gave praise to it. Here's the thing guys of the whites that developed the technologies you speak of none have been accused of child rape let alone accused TWICE, however those that have (such as the DuPont son that molest his own child) you've profited from the work of others based on being white and male. You ain't earned sh*t, you'req just leeching off those that favor you.

  • Jack | April 19, 2014 5:51 PM

    Jews are disproportionately more wealthy when compared to the percentage of the American population...but if you said that there was "Jewish Male privilege", you'd be branded an anti-semite and a racist and someone who's trying to incite the masses to violence against Jews, etc. And see, this applies to every other ethnic group except whites. And there are people who attempt to justify this hypocrisy, or simply deny it and plug their ears and LALALA you out of the room.

    All this white male privilege BS is is the Eternal Jew for minorities made bitter by a biased media, entertainment industry and public schooling that's not only a miserable failure, but it's also eerily similar to what we might have considered indoctrination camps a couple decades ago. And the academics at our colleges are already ushered down a certain path and told to back the A Plan, no matter what. No matter how much damage it's done. No matter how far off the mark it was supposed to hit in it's approach, or how it actually simply made "it" worse. "It" would be race relations, of course. But you can also throw in the homosexual activists, too. Because they'll join hands to destroy us but in the end they won't be tolerated by anyone else as they have been in the "privileged" white West.

    The very term "White Male Privilege" is meant to immediately cause resentment for an entire group of people or, at the very least, implant a seed into the mind that will be parroted by everyone and typically swallowing up any stragglers along the way. Stand in the way of this tidalwave and be crushed. And by the way, sorry about this but...not only will YOU have to deal with being subtly blamed for every alleged crime never prosecuted, but your children and your children's children will have to as well. Blame whitey, angry whitey, evil whitey, racist whitey...yeah, lets have a few more decades of that as we're out bred by nonwhites, I'm sure that's going to work out real well for everyone involved! [\sarcasm]

  • Mike J. | April 19, 2014 4:24 PM

    ( Without white males of the past, we wouldn't even have the internet to be debating this right now. Facts are facts. (And that's from a white man who totally adores Tokyo). )

  • Mike J. | April 19, 2014 4:21 PM

    A lot of truth there. "Privilege is earned", some say.

  • Yikes | April 19, 2014 3:21 PMReply

    I think this is misguided thinking this is just a White Hollywood thing. It's a power and money thing. Anyone who's ever partied with lawyers or plastic surgeons know this. Black or white.

  • Mike J. | April 19, 2014 3:03 PMReply

    I feel obligated to clarify that, although I do think there's a wealthy Jewish and/or gay clique in Hollywood (who partially reaffirm the whole-hunting-for-a-shiksa-goddess/gentile god-boy thing.....Singer; Donner; probably Emmerich; Geffen; Speilberg; Schumacher..etc.) who protect each other and have developed a culture of quite arrogant behavior, I'm not taking an anti-Jewish position. Growing up in Brooklyn I knew (and still do) blue collar Jews who certainly weren't privileged or favored in any way by anyone. (And are nice people).

  • Jennifer Katona | April 19, 2014 1:29 PMReply

    The notion that Singer, a homosexual Jew, is somehow a beneficiary of so-called White privilege instead of, you know, judeo-homo privilege, is beyond absurd.

  • Shtulpin | April 19, 2014 1:17 PMReply

    Does whitey suffer from "beauty" privilege too, that makes him/her supposed to be more likely to be raped as well?

    Total Rape Victims by Race
    Race Rape Victims Percent Distribution
    White 1,220 57.3 %
    Black 857 40.3 %
    American Indian/Alaskan Native 21 1.0 %
    Asian/Pacific Islander 16 0.8 %
    Unknown 15 0.7 %
    Total Victims 2,129 100.0 %

  • jamesxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | April 20, 2014 5:15 AM

    Uhm ... yeah.

    Please, list 'gay perps' by race?

    Because it's even more distorted, i.e. Blacks by far more likely to rape than anyone else.

  • Shtulpin | April 19, 2014 1:14 PMReply

    I fail to see how this is about white privilege, seeing as this guy benefits FAR greatly moreso from Jewish privilege, given his connections in Hollywood, his wealth, etc.

    Sorry Indiewire, I know that this latest "famous gay" turning out to be in fact, yet another homosexual rapist puts a damper in your argument that they're "well-rounded just like us, only quirkier and more colourful!", and that's what bothers you and thus why you try to divert attention to race.

    shameful, Jewish racebaiters you are.

  • Andoni | April 19, 2014 7:40 AMReply

    This is only about a horrific act: rape. Don't try to take advantage of the situation and make it about white men privileges, for God's sake.

  • DM | April 19, 2014 3:18 AMReply

    Are privileged women less likely to be abusive assholes? Are privileged minorities (*cough* NFL *cough*)? Not in my experience. There are just fewer of them.

    It's sloppy to lump Polanski in with Singer as another privileged white male rapist. Singer grew up outside of Princeton, NJ (the 15th most affluent neighborhood in the US) while Polanski spent his youth running from the (white) Nazis who killed his mother and imprisoned his father. Is that the upbringing of a privileged person?

    The fact that both Singer and Polanski (and Woody Allen if we're keeping track of directors with 'short eyes") are Jewish pokes holes in the 'privileged white males are rapists' argument. Historically, being Jewish has been the opposite of privilege... even the opposite of 'white.' We would never suggest that priveleged Jews are rapists though... No no. That would be anti-Semitic. Re: the infamous R Kelly sex tape, we would never suggest he was a rapist because he was privileged and black... That would be racist. But saying Singer is a rapist because he's privileged and white? Fair game.

  • jwchenard | April 19, 2014 2:28 PM

    You can't seriously be suggesting that being Jewish in Hollywood is a disadvantage. If anything, quite the opposite.

    I hardly think Jew/Catholic/Protestant/Agnostic much matters in a town that only values image, wealth, privilege... and pretty much nothing else, I guess. How does the fact that BS and RP both happen to be Jewish have anything at all to do with the point of the article?

  • Mike J. | April 19, 2014 3:04 AMReply

    Or about Jew Hollywood privilege ?

  • Allan Nicholls | April 19, 2014 1:42 AMReply

    A well written article that shocked and angered me. Then it made me helpless and ineffective. I would plead to my unions (DGA SAG WGA), the Studios, and the Producers Association, who wield all the power in Hollywood; can't you do something? can't you get this right for once? This is about being human...

  • Snow | April 18, 2014 10:51 PMReply

    If it was all about money, the victim surely would have first approached Singer privately to try to get money from him. As the author writes, claims like these don't come without a emotional toll on the alleged victim. As for the timing, it's perfectly legitimate that the victim could have been triggered by the publicity surrounding the movie release, stewing in his anger (rightfully so) that this man doesn't deserve accolades and positive attention considering what he has done.

  • JW | April 18, 2014 9:04 PMReply

    "What is the suggestion here (and all over Twitter)? That Michael Egan is somehow attempting to skewer the success of the film, or capitalize on the publicity surrounding its director? Sadly, that's hardly likely."

    Wait, so we can't make assumptions about Singer's culpability but we CAN assume that this isn't some form of cash-grabbing allegation?

    Let's be consistent here. We don't know if Singer's guilty any more than we know if Egan's allegations are true.

  • ZACHARY TALLIS | April 19, 2014 8:30 AM

    Apologies, I meant likely outcome, not likely intent. Have amended for clarification.

  • MaySausage | April 18, 2014 8:11 PMReply

    Why white? do asians, blacks or latinos not fuk kids or rape?

    are there no Privileged asians, blacks or latinos?

  • Dora | April 18, 2014 6:16 PMReply

    Actually, I would really appreciate it if you would go into Wagner and anti-semitism. Largely because I find myself having to make that argument again, and again, and I am starting to run out of arguments...

  • dskfjgn | April 18, 2014 6:03 PMReply

    Yes, this story in which the perpetrator and victim both share the same race and gender is totally about race and gender. Jesus, find a less worn-out fixation.

    Blogging: it's easier than making a blip on an EEG.

  • Anon | April 18, 2014 7:09 PM

    Nevermind either that sexual assaults are disproportionately committed by non-whites. Lol.

  • Rene | April 18, 2014 4:08 PMReply

    Bullshit, It's about a part gay culture. White male privilege may play a role as well.

  • Danella Isaacs | April 18, 2014 3:51 PMReply

    Didn't Marion Barry get reelected as DC mayor after being recorded smoking crack and found guilty of various not-so-small other crimes? It's true that white men are over-privileged, but this is a simplistic take on that.

  • sean | April 18, 2014 1:42 PMReply

    For those who partied in Hollywood at gay bars in the 90's, these are old stories. And Singer's behavior was much gabbed about back in the day. Stories of him and a certain award winning actor picking up young hustlers are legendary. But just because they're decades old, doesn't make them true. As a director, I lost interest in his work after that crappy Superman he made so I haven't kept up with his career.

  • Crazyxcrazy | April 18, 2014 12:53 PMReply

    Another "just kill all straight white males and everything will be fine" blog.


  • Crazyxcrazy | April 18, 2014 8:17 PM

    Glad to have a fan bro.

    If all the white straighty's were dead the world wouldn't have these problems. This entire blog would just be the praising of any gay/les/ts celeb no matter if they suck or are obnoxious cnuts

    Gay is good/straight is bad = /bent

  • CrazyEyes | April 18, 2014 2:14 PM

    I look daily for your insights, Crazy, and you never disappoint. Tell me, where again does it argue that we need to do in all the white boys?

  • Mike Curtis | April 18, 2014 12:52 PMReply

    Walk any lot in Hollywood and quietly ask the crew members about these people. Ask the electricians, grips, props people, etc. You'll get an entirely different picture of these men from we who observe them in their unguarded moments. Divorced from above the line agendas and angles of those usually interviewed for such articles, a profile will emerge of vanity, ego, insecurity, entitlement, detachment, and outright cruelty.
    Of course, the thoughts of an unknown dolly grip or rigging gaffer won't tickle the imagination of your readership and sell product like the vacuous and self-serving banter of the flavor of the month actor, an entirely different profile will be exposed.

  • Nathan | April 18, 2014 12:43 PMReply

    The guy wasnt raped. A 17 year old man who is willing to have sex for fame is a famewhore-he cant be raped. And you dont get raped then go to another party and get raped again then fly to Hawaii and get raped again. He is a failed actor/model/male whore and now he wants money 15 years wont work. And as for Singer? Ive met him twice-yeah, he likes the young what? he doesnt need to rape the willing...

  • Snow | April 18, 2014 10:44 PM

    You need to get your facts straight. He was 15 yrs old.

  • iain | April 18, 2014 9:55 PM

    Nathan, your contemptible comment, your despicable dismissal of the victim, is a perfect example of why (particularly male) survivors of rape feel so ashamed of, and diffident about, coming forward to file charges. Under other circumstances, you would never merit a reply and you would be consigned to the realm of internet trolls, but this case is so significant, and urgent, that it is worth repeating, again and again, that NO MEANS NO.

  • md | April 18, 2014 12:39 PMReply

    i'm shocked to find they are still segregating anal rape parties in this day in age.

  • FP | April 18, 2014 12:28 PMReply

    'There's plenty of evidence of behaviour of his that many, including myself, find abhorrent. But is that proof that these latest allegations are true? No."

    So in other words, the author is aware that the allegations made against of Bryan Singer are true, though not in the case of the plaintiff? Wow, way to insert yourself into the proceedings, Mr. Tallis! Your throwaway assertion demands greater context or explanation, whether here or in court. The floor is yours if you care to elaborate, otherwise can we assume that your assertion will stand alone if it was your desire to assassinate Singer's character without revealing your "evidence?"

    As for "revealing" dominant white male culture, this is a country and star system which allowed Rock Hudson and Liberace to be openly in the closet for 30 years, before "shocking" the general public with the facts that both died of AIDS. In other words, we didn't need to read this hit job to understand the obviousness of its point. We already had Trayvon Martin, and Goldman Sachs, and Woody Allen to illustrate it.

    Get it together, Bent.

  • FP | April 18, 2014 4:39 PM

    We, as in GLBTQIA people. You're on a queer film site. My pompous ass wonders if you realize that.

    If you weren't aware that hiding underground gay parties for successful white men in the 'Wood has been part and parcel of both the queer and film experience, welcome to school, bitches. If you weren't aware that white men go free for killing my brothers of color, welcome to school, bitches. If you weren't aware that not a single insider from Wall Street has been prosecuted for crimes against my fellow Americans in the middle and lower classes back in '08, welcome to school, bitches. If you weren't aware that Woody Allen avoided the scrutiny of a trial, which would have NEVER happened if he was a black director who allegedly assaulted a young white girl, welcome to school, bitches.

    Ignorance is not a virtue. Neither is calling people names. But if we goin' there, then we is. Now what, bitches?

  • Karl | April 18, 2014 2:24 PM

    Also, Millie, I agree. I can smell the pompous from here.

  • Karl | April 18, 2014 2:24 PM

    Who is the "we" in the penultimate paragraph of this comment? "we" didn't need to read this .. "we" already knew about white male culture?

    I'm afraid the fact that Zimmerman walked and Goldman still wields the power it does suggests there are plenty of people who don't think about white male privilege, or are not interested in challenging it Ms/Mr FP (though we should note that Mr Zimmerman was not himself white, so I'm not sure why you brought him up in this particular context).

    The author never claimed to be exposing you to the new phenomenon "white male privilege", he was just showing how it helped to understand what was going on in this situation. This shit makes me hate comment boards. Guess I'm a fool for wasting 5 minutes adding my voice to the noise.

  • Millie | April 18, 2014 1:47 PM

    Sorry, your pomposity is just awful FB. You understood the point of the article without even reading it. Good. Have a Smartie.

  • Charmee | April 18, 2014 10:40 AMReply

    There are some distinctions that our culture needs to make and that is the difference between being gay and being a pedophile. Those do not intertwine and steriotypes such as this perpetuate a culture of over sexualized queer figures, making gay and lesbians, other.

    I go to Penn State University and when the Sandusky allegations came to the surface there was a conflict between heroism and sexual orientation. The Westboro church took it apon themselves, as they so often do, to hold signs up that alluded to Jerry Sandusky being gay. False! Let's shut that down right now being gay means that you participate in mutual consensual sex with a partner of the same sex and pedophellia is the use of power to dominate and manipulate one who cannot consent. Very, very different things.

    In addition to the heroism myth: putting a figure on a peda-stool and bowing to their accomplishments; the author is clearly taking a side of the argument. It's crystal clear that you do not believe the allegations are true. You did this by isolating the victim and quickly shoving Bryan Singers accomplishments down the reader throat. Please don't play into the heroism myth that this man can be cleared of any wrong doing because of his accomplishments. Weather or not he committed this disgusting and violent acts this article is foggy. What is your objective? Why write an article that mentions his accomplishments and the allegations? Is he a hero? Better yet, because he is a hero or a pioneer in his field does it exonerate him? Can these blemishes be erased?

  • iain | April 18, 2014 9:41 PM

    I do so hope that Charmee's spelling of 'pedestal' is deliberate and ironic? If not, Gawd help us.

  • Angela | April 18, 2014 3:29 PM

    Charmee if you are at Penn State I respectfully hope you're not majoring in a subject that requires reading comprehension. Your comment suggests you have not understood a word this article was saying.

  • Rick | April 18, 2014 12:02 PM

    The article seems pretty much on Egan's side or at least not for Singer's career. In fact, the whole point seemed to illustrate what continuing to like his movies or separating his art from these misdeeds might lead to.

    Also, is there REALLY zero homosexual component to an adult male raping young boys rather than young girls? It almost sounds like you are saying "It doesn't count as gay because it was rape." A gay person can definitely still be a rapist, unless you mean to say pedophilia is for better or worse an entirely different sexual orientation all together.

  • ZACHARY TALLIS | April 18, 2014 11:22 AM

    Shoving Bryan Singer's accomplishments down the reader's throat? What? What?! Where??!

  • Ike K. | April 18, 2014 10:35 AMReply

    You're not mentioning Wagner's personal life, you're mentioning his public one.

  • Rick | April 18, 2014 9:54 AMReply

    I'm not sure why you are so dismissive of the possibility that Egan is taking advantage of the X-Men publicity. If there are people who are so despicable enough to rape another person, there are certainly people despicable enough to take advantage of the PR-obsessed Hollywood.

  • KILL ALL THE MEN! | April 18, 2014 9:50 AMReply

    Using child rape to further push an agenda that divides human beings as opposed to bringing them together, making a general accusation about white men (once again)...You've done it again Indiewire! Congrats!

  • Here Be Monsters | April 18, 2014 12:22 PM

    You fail to realize the simple, inarguable fact that it's not sexist if male, and not racist if one of the all-privileged white tyrants.

  • Dane | April 18, 2014 9:50 AMReply

    Of course it's suspicious that Egan waited 15 years to come forward one month before Singer's biggest film release ever. While someone on Movie Pilot might beat around the bush, I will say you'd have to either be naive NOT to consider that, as a logical human.

  • iain | April 18, 2014 9:51 PM

    I am currently involved personally, one might say intimately, in a difficult and harrowing legal action against the Roman Catholic Church. It has taken *decades* to get the case this far - largely because of the Statute of Limitations, not because of any unwillingness on the part of the child victims of priestly rape (children who are now grown adults, some of them in their senior years) who are only now able to file charges because of the suspension of the SOL by several enlightened state Governors (such as those of California and Hawaii). It is not at all "suspicious" that Mr Egan has waited to come forward, especially given the shame and fear and intimidation factors involved.

Email Updates