Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

progressivebydesign

(19,458 posts)
40. Curious.. 1999??
Fri Apr 18, 2014, 04:34 PM
Apr 2014

but from someone that grew up in Hollywood, there are lechers of every kind there, preying on teen minors of both genders. However, my street smarts from the time tell me that a 17 year old may have been flown to another location ONCE for something like that, but wouldn't have gone with him after that, if it was truly as it's being portrayed. Sadly too many minors in Hollywood will do all kinds of things willingly for drugs and alcohol, and the chance to socialize with older Hollywood types. Every day buses drop off more and more teens who run away to LA, and sell their souls or bodies for money and drugs.

The fact that the parents didn't question numerous trips to Hawaii, makes me think that the guy was emancipated at that point, or a runaway, perhaps.

1999? Now he wants money? I'm skeptical, I'm sorry. Flame away.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Have to wait and see Prophet 451 Apr 2014 #1
Agreed. SoapBox Apr 2014 #2
Variety, unfortunately for Singer, wouldn't say this if they didn't have the facts. joshcryer Apr 2014 #4
Well, the article just reports the accusation Prophet 451 Apr 2014 #6
Feldman wrote about it in his book in great detail LordGlenconner Apr 2014 #45
Umm. . .do you know how common this is? As a producer friend told me seven years ago Nanjing to Seoul Apr 2014 #3
it may be very common qazplm Apr 2014 #9
The standard of protection for children can not be based upon the profession of assailant. FarPoint Apr 2014 #10
I know. . .let's just say it happes in The Biz alot and most of the children are cocered into Nanjing to Seoul Apr 2014 #11
We confronted the priest when it was said to be impossible. FarPoint Apr 2014 #13
So was slavery once. Doesn't matter. It's criminal and evil. closeupready Apr 2014 #18
Agreed, but don't be surprised if some of our liberal heroes partake in this kind of evil shit. Nanjing to Seoul Apr 2014 #19
This will have some worrying/scurrying Bosonic Apr 2014 #5
As tough as it is, you shouldn't judge. Socal31 Apr 2014 #7
Of course I have no idea what happened pipoman Apr 2014 #8
I disagree with your analysis of "boy or child" under the age of 18 being disingenuous. FarPoint Apr 2014 #12
You have to draw the line somewhere, when it comes to the law. /nt Ash_F Apr 2014 #15
Call him a "minor." Accurate and without emotive connotations. Comrade Grumpy Apr 2014 #16
Funny.... AlbertCat Apr 2014 #20
The word "forcibly" was used... awoke_in_2003 Apr 2014 #26
not funny itsrobert Apr 2014 #27
Oh please.... AlbertCat Apr 2014 #39
If the minor is below the age of consent BainsBane Apr 2014 #42
Egan's parents let him fly to Hawaii with an older man? LiberalArkie Apr 2014 #14
on more than one occasion Doctor_J Apr 2014 #31
Sounds opportunistic to me SpankMe Apr 2014 #17
I agree with some of your points, however did you feel the same way about delayed reporting Exultant Democracy Apr 2014 #23
His post makes clear it isn't only time dsc Apr 2014 #29
17 and 33? Yes, that is an outrageous age difference! LongTomH Apr 2014 #25
Luckily, the age of consent is 17 where I live Reter Apr 2014 #33
The point is, that a relation between a person in their 30s and a teenager is almost certainly...... LongTomH Apr 2014 #34
what? if you are gay you cant be rape? itsrobert Apr 2014 #28
'if you're really suffering" BainsBane Apr 2014 #43
There's just too much JustAnotherGen Apr 2014 #44
Does this mean that Singer's next project will be a Batman & Robin remake? Tom Ripley Apr 2014 #21
what's that supposed to mean? nt alp227 Apr 2014 #32
If he is actually going to name additional names next week... Tom Ripley Apr 2014 #36
I still don't understand. nt alp227 Apr 2014 #37
Maybe this wasn't rape-rape, as Whoopi characterized it. closeupready Apr 2014 #22
For those wondering why he isn't/hasn't been charged criminally. Xithras Apr 2014 #24
Considering the lawyer says he is bringing three more cases next week and naming names Godhumor Apr 2014 #30
or do you mean "Pays out" ??? n/t progressivebydesign Apr 2014 #41
Followup: AP: Man details abuse claims against 'X-Men' director PoliticAverse Apr 2014 #35
I believe him. K&R closeupready Apr 2014 #38
Curious.. 1999?? progressivebydesign Apr 2014 #40
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»‘X-Men’ Director Bryan Si...»Reply #40