Marilyn Manson files suit against Wood and Gore

Post Reply New Topic

I started hearing about this in the last few days and read a few articles.

Not sure what to think yet aside from that these are some very concrete and specific accusations against Wood and Gore, and while I'm getting the sense that Me Too scams / victim-faking are already well known and have been getting the pushback they deserve. If these complaints are accurate I have to hope that this really brightens the line between actual abuse victims and con-artists and that the later is really there preying on the former.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertai ... 346866002/

More, Ashley Morgan Smithline recants charges stating that Evan Rachel Wood manipulated her into making false accusations:

Does this mean all of the accusations should be considered false, or just some?

A lot of the (non-sexual) abuse he's alleged to have committed perfectly lines up with behaviour that is consistently documented by people close to him, and much of it lines up with his own self-admitted behaviour as described in Long Hard Road.

The cycles of idealization and verbal abuse are widely documented, this includes many former bandmates as well. I don't know if any of his actions amount to rape or human trafficking, but he's got a long history of abusing people whether they be close friends or others - what more, he revels while describing it in Long Hard Road.

The funny thing is that he dropped Jeordie like a hot potato when Jessicka started mentioning how she was treated by him (despite him knowing and describing some parts in LHR) but it seems like they're both abusers.

I heard about the Wood/Warner allegations around the same time as the Depp/Heard case and it wasn't looking good for Warner and his dark past. I'm torn about it as I like Manson and Wood, all I hope is the truth comes out, it will be shocking to me whoever is guilty.

I wouldn't rule out that there might be significant exaggeration and re-framing, even if some claims are objectively true.

In particular it might very much rely on what one considers to have been under duress vs. what one considers to be a regret.

Let's be real. So many male rockers were having sex with literally thousands of women. In admist some of these there will be somebody who is going to come back and do a Virginia Giuffre because they regretted what they did.

The fact that there might be people who regret doesn't mean there aren't also people who didn't consent, or didn't consent to where things went.

A number of rock stars have faced reckonings over sexual abuse they've inflicted upon people. It's just flat out ignorant to act like they can't be abusers because they attract groupies.

Look up Dahvie Vanity or Jacob Hoggard.

What's strange is he seems to strike different people in a wildly different manner. For example Alice Cooper wrote something of an editorial on both Brian Warner and Johnny Depp and he admitted that he couldn't know what happened behind closed doors in bedrooms but that the accusations for both of them seemed completely incongruous with everything he knew of either of them. Twiggy Ramirez actually claimed that Manson was precisely this way but you just said it (Jessicka Addams), so I don't know how I'd take his utterances. Colonel Kurtz dug up a lot of people from Manson's past, including live-in assistants and the actress who was in 'Groupie' and they had nothing but glowing things to say about him.

I actually just watched another video on 'Groupie' and I'd like to share my impression:



Manson, at least when he's in war mode, looks like a textbook narcissist but when he's not in war mode people cite finding him very polite, calm, as having an encyclopedic minds, entertaining in that he has a lot of interesting stories to tell from all over the place (whether his experiences, odd bits of history, etc.).

I almost wonder about the two following things:

1) 'Groupie' might have been something he did for two reasons - first for mystique around his brand at the time and second, to dangle a false attack vector for people who might want to go after him for their own reasons (a big red bull flag with a gauntlet behind it).

2) If that last part is right - while some people admire the capacity to play 4D chess I don't think someone with a normal / healthy upbringing is inclined to develop those skills. It makes me wonder if the whole 'Antichrist Superstar' was a way for him to unpack CPTSD.

That last part's purely speculative (plausible to the degree that a lot of CPTSD will show narcissistic traits without having NPD), I guess you could say anyone who grows up in a rust belt city or suburb whose not exactly like everyone else (especially with a sharp mind) is going to go through hell at school - I was in such a school system and i know all about it, in fact it's possible that being on psych meds and being made as passive as I was might have actually kept me semi-safe from worse things happening.

If you do have a band mate who had stories though they'd be relevant and I'm curious.

Davie Bowie and Jimmy Page come to mind (at least persistant accusations in the later case).

Yeah, it's going to be a difficult one to prove, as usual in such cases the person with the best lawyer who spins the best yarn will win in the court of public opinion.

Daisy Berkowitz and Gidget Gein are the first two who come to mind.

Manson is pretty transparent about his abuse towards Gein in his book. Twiggy stole most of his shtick from Gein and the rest from Jessicka, which seemed like an intentional final dig at Gein.

mansonwiki has a pretty glossed-over version of Scott Putesky's final months in the band.




Sara Lee Lucas: "I want to say I feel very sorry for Kenny (Ginger Fish) and John 5, and every past member of the band for Brian's physical abuse that would get exponentially worse after I left."



That's what could be found after only a little bit of research, but Manson whooping on Ginger Fish and his drum kit is an old cliché with the band. They'd wreck SLL's drums back in the day and it just continued to escalate with his replacement.

I didn't find anything specific regarding John 5, but I also didn't look for very long.

I don't really feel like digging deep into this rabbit hole, but that's probably enough to start researching if anyone is interested.

Therein lies the problem. If you enable pop/rock entertainers to have groupies who are themselves quite young then think about it...how removed are they from Jeffrey Epstein's victims? Epstein preyed on young teenage girls who were under the impression they were going to be his "companions". So....what exactly did they think that meant? how different is that from -
women who flocked around Charles Manson?
women who flocked around Hugh Heffner
women who gave themselves to sex cults and to Marilyn Manson?

Are they going in with their eyes shut?? if women who were used by Epstein and Heffner felt abused (yes Heffner got away with abusing hundreds of girls barely older than teenagers) then are groupies who are in the teens (and there are thousands of them around the world right now sleeping with high profile people) likely to feel they were used when they get older? scratch the surface and this problem is more widespread than 1-2 creepy old men

This seemed timely.

No s**t the problem is bigger than a handful of creepy guys, but that doesn't mean we don't try the handful of guys who can be proven to bear criminal liability for their actions.

Abusing people shouldn't become acceptable because you've sold x number of albums or had y number of consenting partners. It also shouldn't receive a blind-eye because well, someone else got away with it.

There is also accountability, at some point women must protect themselves from being put in this position. If we are talking about teenage groupies then one can say they are not mentally mature enough to engage adult male rockers. But where are the parents?

For women > 18 years old, should they practice caution before agreeing to go with a billionaire to his island? or agreeing to be mistreated by a celebrity with whips and chains because they claim to have been groomed? At what point do they stop being accountable for saying yes?

Surely there are boundaries a woman should not cross if there are risks?

Just to make sure I understand; what you're asking is, at what point is the victim of abuse responsible for the abuser's actions?

At no point. The abuser is always responsible for their abusive actions towards others.