Danny Masterson

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How disgusting Mila and Ashton wrote letters. Gross fake wile celebs.

That’s a tough one for me.
If they are friends, which they have been for a very long time, they likely do not believe that their friend is capable of such atrocities.
A character letter doesn’t speak to the veracity of the charge. It just says we know him to be a swell guy, and we love and trust him, etc.
If you were accused of doing these things and you swore up and down to your friends and to the world that you didn’t do it —wouldn’t you hope that one or two of those friends would say “yes of course I will write a character reference for you”

They may truly believe him to be innocent.
And in that case, it isn’t disgusting for them to write a letter on his behalf that says something to the effect of “these accusations are not aligned with the person that I’ve known him to be over the past 30 years”

I can't view it this way because I've experienced, as a rape survivor, being told by people "that's just not who he is," and it's just gaslighting. Good for you he never raped you, but you don't actually know he is, and acting like your experience with him can be placed next to my experience and weighed equally is BS.

Statements like this also tend to emphasize to survivors that they were chosen as victims specifically because they lacked the power and social capital of others. Masterson would never have attacked Kunis because she, like him, was famous and wealthy and there was no power differential to exploit. He only raped people he could dominate. This is a horrible feeling as a survivor, to realize you were chosen for your relative weakness, that your attacker knew people would be less likely to care about what happens to you or believe what you have to say.

And usually it works, and it dies so specifically because people in power will circle up and protect one of their own. Which is what Mila and Ashton were doing. Glad to see it didnt work this time.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. It was a helpful counterpoint to the PP.

Not a rape situation, but I was asked by a friend years ago to speak on her behalf against her husband in a divorce/child custody case. She said he had been abusive to her, and I saw bruises. I told her I could speak to her character and honesty, but I could not say that I knew he abused her because I had not witnessed it. Our friendship was never the same after that, and I often wondered if I should have handled it differently.

PP here. I had to think about your comment a bit because it definitely triggered some things for me. But here are my thoughts.

I think it's reasonable to tell someone that you can't testify to things you didn't see. But to tell someone who has shown you their bruises that you don't "know" they were abused is going to sound, to them, like "I think you might be lying about this." Even if you don't mean it that way.

I went through this with being sexually assaulted. There were people who were friends with both me and the person who assaulted me. I told two of them who I considered close friends about what had happened, because I thought they could offers support for me within that community. Their responses were very confusing to me. On the one hand they behaved in a very supportive way, telling me they were so sorry that had happened to me and offering to "be there for me" however I needed. But they continued to maintain a normal friendship with the person who assaulted me, including one on one time with that person, as though it had not happened. When I asked them about this, they said that while they loved me and supported me, they couldn't "know" what had happened and therefore couldn't change their behavior towards the other person.

But from my perspective, they did know, because I had told them what happened. To say they couldn't know what had happened because they hadn't been there indicated that they either thought I was mistaken or that I was lying. Neither of those felt like a reasonable position to take (if they believed I was mistaken, then their support had been condescension, and if they thought I was lying, then their support had also been a lie). Since I did know what had happened, I couldn't maintain a friendship with someone who was unwilling to take my word about something so serious, especially when I very clearly needed and had asked for help in getting through it. And that was the end of the friendship.

I'm not saying you were wrong -- only you can decide what the right thing to do in that situation is. But I think your friend's decision to pull away after you told her you couldn't know for certain her husband had abused her (when she'd shown you the bruises and told you that's what had happened) was probably the right choice for her. In that situation, you need people around you who are willing to accept the hard things you are telling them as truth.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, and I'm sorry this was triggering.

[Anonymous]

I don’t want to read this whole thread so am not sure if this has been discussed—have you read his wife’s life story? Oh my goodness — I wonder if her childhood set her up to not be a good judge of character. How can one person have this much drama around them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel for his wife. She's the daughter of a predator and then married a predator. That's a lot to take.

She has $$$. She'll be fine.

I assume she'll lose it all in a civil case.

Why? What did she do outside the scope of defending her husband?

The victims may sue him, not her, but I think PP is assuming they have joint assets.

[Anonymous]

As a millennial who loved that 70s show, it’s hard to believe that such a beloved character could be such a creep. I 100% believe his victims. No one should get away with awful crimes, but it does suck to be the one person finally caught and to some extent, made an example of. I think we’re so used to celebrities getting away with things based on accusations being unfathomable based on their tv/film personas. If he hadn’t portrayed the lovable cynic on a tv show, I wouldn’t differentiate him from any other rapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How disgusting Mila and Ashton wrote letters. Gross fake wile celebs.

That’s a tough one for me.
If they are friends, which they have been for a very long time, they likely do not believe that their friend is capable of such atrocities.
A character letter doesn’t speak to the veracity of the charge. It just says we know him to be a swell guy, and we love and trust him, etc.
If you were accused of doing these things and you swore up and down to your friends and to the world that you didn’t do it —wouldn’t you hope that one or two of those friends would say “yes of course I will write a character reference for you”

They may truly believe him to be innocent.
And in that case, it isn’t disgusting for them to write a letter on his behalf that says something to the effect of “these accusations are not aligned with the person that I’ve known him to be over the past 30 years”

I can't view it this way because I've experienced, as a rape survivor, being told by people "that's just not who he is," and it's just gaslighting. Good for you he never raped you, but you don't actually know he is, and acting like your experience with him can be placed next to my experience and weighed equally is BS.

Statements like this also tend to emphasize to survivors that they were chosen as victims specifically because they lacked the power and social capital of others. Masterson would never have attacked Kunis because she, like him, was famous and wealthy and there was no power differential to exploit. He only raped people he could dominate. This is a horrible feeling as a survivor, to realize you were chosen for your relative weakness, that your attacker knew people would be less likely to care about what happens to you or believe what you have to say.

And usually it works, and it dies so specifically because people in power will circle up and protect one of their own. Which is what Mila and Ashton were doing. Glad to see it didnt work this time.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. It was a helpful counterpoint to the PP.

Not a rape situation, but I was asked by a friend years ago to speak on her behalf against her husband in a divorce/child custody case. She said he had been abusive to her, and I saw bruises. I told her I could speak to her character and honesty, but I could not say that I knew he abused her because I had not witnessed it. Our friendship was never the same after that, and I often wondered if I should have handled it differently.

You handled it horribly, and your friend should ghost you.

This was about testifying in court—she had to tell the truth. She had not witnessed her friend being abused. I can understand the friendship suffering, but I don’t think she did anything wrong. You can’t just walk into a court and say things because your friend wants you to. “Your friend should ghost you,” is such a childish thing to say. I’m so sick of grown women acting like 13 year olds.

DP. The PP wasn't clear about exactly what her friend asked her to do, but even if it was about testifying in the custody case, she would never be asked to testify to whether she "knew" the friend was abused because it would be impossible to establish that it's something she could know for precisely there reasons she mentions (she didn't actually witness the abuse). You have to lay groundwork for testimony like that and they wouldn't be able to.

But she could have testified to the bruises and to her interactions with her friend (which would go beyond just her character, and could be influential in a custody trial). It sounds like for some reason the PP was uncomfortable doing this, maybe because she thought she'd be asked to say abuse occurred (again, that's not how trial testimony works). Or maybe she just didn't want to get involved because it's messy.

But phrasing it as "I can't say I know he abused you" was a cruel thing to say to someone in that situation because it makes it sound like you don't believe her. I wouldn't suggest ghosting but I totally get what a gut punch it would be to hear that from a friend you were reaching out to for support. It's important for people to understand that for survivors of abuse (sexual or otherwise) being believed is a really fundamental need and it can be really scary to disclose what happened to others. There's a psychological component to abuse and you have a primal need for people to validate your experience because the tendency to dissociate or move into denial states is very strong (part of the flight or flight response).

I think the PP was well meaning but even she wonders if she handled it correctly. I think she should have handled it better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a millennial who loved that 70s show, it’s hard to believe that such a beloved character could be such a creep. I 100% believe his victims. No one should get away with awful crimes, but it does suck to be the one person finally caught and to some extent, made an example of. I think we’re so used to celebrities getting away with things based on accusations being unfathomable based on their tv/film personas. If he hadn’t portrayed the lovable cynic on a tv show, I wouldn’t differentiate him from any other rapist.

Oh my, no. You are exactly the person he depended on to excuse him because he was famous. Finally caught? Made an example of? He raped people. You should be lamenting the people whose fame shielded them, not complaining he was unfairly treated because he was famous. Made an example of? He raped people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a millennial who loved that 70s show, it’s hard to believe that such a beloved character could be such a creep. I 100% believe his victims. No one should get away with awful crimes, but it does suck to be the one person finally caught and to some extent, made an example of. I think we’re so used to celebrities getting away with things based on accusations being unfathomable based on their tv/film personas. If he hadn’t portrayed the lovable cynic on a tv show, I wouldn’t differentiate him from any other rapist.

Gently, I think you need to learn to separate the characters someone plays, or their public persona, from who they are as a person. The character he played on a television show has zero to do with his capacity for committing these crimes. They are unrelated.

You will have an easier time in life if you learn that you don't know actors or celebrities or other public people, and that the warm feelings you have towards these people are based on imaginary stories and PR skill. They could be anyone -- they might be wonderful or terrible, most likely somewhere in between with the capacity for great kindness AND terrible cruelty.

As a general rule, the more powerful someone is, the more likely it is that they could harm someone. That doesn't mean that all powerful people hurt others, but powerful people can hurt people much, much more. So it's good to have a healthy skepticism with regards to people who are rich, famous, charismatic, or otherwise powerful. They are more dangerous than average people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel for his wife. She's the daughter of a predator and then married a predator. That's a lot to take.

She has $$$. She'll be fine.

She’s also a massive a-hole and always has been. She’s exactly the sort of person who would be married to Danny Masterson. She mocked his victims. I don’t feel sorry for her at all.

[Anonymous]

ICYMI: Sharon Osborne recently said Ashton Kutcher was the rudest celeb she’s ever met. She seems to have met him when he was younger.

I think the only reason both Ashton and Mila wrote letters on behalf of Masterson was because he has something on Kutcher. Why else would they write letters when it’s obvious they will be openly criticized for standing by a rapist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel for his wife. She's the daughter of a predator and then married a predator. That's a lot to take.

She has $$$. She'll be fine.

She’s also a massive a-hole and always has been. She’s exactly the sort of person who would be married to Danny Masterson. She mocked his victims. I don’t feel sorry for her at all.

As someone who crossed paths with her many times in late 1990s NYC, I found her to be an insufferable, attention-seeking narcissist. I remember her making fun of people she considered less cool, in full earshot and view of her targets, just to humiliate them in front of all the other horrible spawn of the rich and famous.

[Anonymous]

[google]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel for his wife. She's the daughter of a predator and then married a predator. That's a lot to take.

She has $$$. She'll be fine.

She’s also a massive a-hole and always has been. She’s exactly the sort of person who would be married to Danny Masterson. She mocked his victims. I don’t feel sorry for her at all.

As someone who crossed paths with her many times in late 1990s NYC, I found her to be an insufferable, attention-seeking narcissist. I remember her making fun of people she considered less cool, in full earshot and view of her targets, just to humiliate them in front of all the other horrible spawn of the rich and famous.

Glad karma has come for her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a millennial who loved that 70s show, it’s hard to believe that such a beloved character could be such a creep. I 100% believe his victims. No one should get away with awful crimes, but it does suck to be the one person finally caught and to some extent, made an example of. I think we’re so used to celebrities getting away with things based on accusations being unfathomable based on their tv/film personas. If he hadn’t portrayed the lovable cynic on a tv show, I wouldn’t differentiate him from any other rapist.

Oh my, no. You are exactly the person he depended on to excuse him because he was famous. Finally caught? Made an example of? He raped people. You should be lamenting the people whose fame shielded them, not complaining he was unfairly treated because he was famous. Made an example of? He raped people.

My only point was that he was not the first. They all should be punished, he shouldn’t be the first. But he is and that’s shocking, most of all to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ICYMI: Sharon Osborne recently said Ashton Kutcher was the rudest celeb she’s ever met. She seems to have met him when he was younger.

I think the only reason both Ashton and Mila wrote letters on behalf of Masterson was because he has something on Kutcher. Why else would they write letters when it’s obvious they will be openly criticized for standing by a rapist?

I’ve also met Ashton Kutcher and he was incredibly nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a millennial who loved that 70s show, it’s hard to believe that such a beloved character could be such a creep. I 100% believe his victims. No one should get away with awful crimes, but it does suck to be the one person finally caught and to some extent, made an example of. I think we’re so used to celebrities getting away with things based on accusations being unfathomable based on their tv/film personas. If he hadn’t portrayed the lovable cynic on a tv show, I wouldn’t differentiate him from any other rapist.

Gently, I think you need to learn to separate the characters someone plays, or their public persona, from who they are as a person. The character he played on a television show has zero to do with his capacity for committing these crimes. They are unrelated.

You will have an easier time in life if you learn that you don't know actors or celebrities or other public people, and that the warm feelings you have towards these people are based on imaginary stories and PR skill. They could be anyone -- they might be wonderful or terrible, most likely somewhere in between with the capacity for great kindness AND terrible cruelty.

As a general rule, the more powerful someone is, the more likely it is that they could harm someone. That doesn't mean that all powerful people hurt others, but powerful people can hurt people much, much more. So it's good to have a healthy skepticism with regards to people who are rich, famous, charismatic, or otherwise powerful. They are more dangerous than average people.

Totally, not disagreeing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel for his wife. She's the daughter of a predator and then married a predator. That's a lot to take.

She has $$$. She'll be fine.

She’s also a massive a-hole and always has been. She’s exactly the sort of person who would be married to Danny Masterson. She mocked his victims. I don’t feel sorry for her at all.

As someone who crossed paths with her many times in late 1990s NYC, I found her to be an insufferable, attention-seeking narcissist. I remember her making fun of people she considered less cool, in full earshot and view of her targets, just to humiliate them in front of all the other horrible spawn of the rich and famous.

I met her once in LA in mid 2000s and she was awful and super rude. Screw her.