Kevin Spacey Accused of Sexual Misconduct, Confirms Rumors He Is Gay

[+ sniper]

And what is your point with that? Are you denying that men are by and large the perpetrators of sexual assault. Let's accept that as a fact first, then discuss the very small percentage perpetrated by women.

He's saying the percentage is not as low as the official stats indicate.

No, my point was simply that there are a lot of women out there who are perps, too. Pretty simple. I actually know quite a few men who were molested by female's. I actually know more men who were molested than females and I have more female friends.

The point of all this #metoo stuff is that a lot of women have kept it to themselves.

[Moondance]

The sixth season of “House of Cards” will be its last.

Plans were reportedly underway to bring the series to an end after the upcoming season, but the abrupt announcement raised the possibility that Hollywood could begin shunning Spacey as it has Weinstein. (Spacey’s next Netflix project is the biopic “Gore,” in which he stars as writer Gore Vidal.)

 

Late Monday, the International Academy of Television Arts and Sciences announced that it would not honor Spacey with the 2017 Emmy Founders Award, as had been planned.

 

Source: Los Angeles Times, 10/31/17

[rogerG]

He may not be gay, but the hit that Mark Halperin is taking from the Weinstein fallout is astounding. I think almost every employer he's had has dropped him, including high-profile jobs that were on the burner. He goes from the top of his game to fully unemployed in a matter of two weeks. The rug has been completely pulled from under his feet.

 

Can't help but wonder if he saved a lot of money. What does a famous journalist do when no one will give him a job? If lawyers come after him, whatever money he has saved may disappear quickly.

 

It is fascinating to watch these veteran successful people fall so hard. I'm sure it provides some comfort to their victims.

[Kenny]

I believe Rapp is quoted today, saying he was picked up "like a bride" and taken to Spacey's bed when Spacey laid on top of him once there. I don't believe Rapp went willingly to Spacey's bed. No matter what the details were regarding two male thespians alone in Spacey's home, Spacey crossed a serious line by trying to seduce a 14-year-old boy into having sex, even if the 14-year-old was a willing accomplice, which it seems Rapp was not.

Absolutely, unequivocally right. Even if the child, Anthony, was naked in bed with his ass in the air when the adult, Spacey, came into the bedroom, the appropriate response for the latter is “Get up, get dressed, go home.”

[Kenny]

I hate that Kevin came out at the same time he was accused. Just perpetuates the homophobic stereotype that gays are child molesters.

Given that the initial headlines at places like ABC News and People were “Kevin Spacey comes out as gay,” and not “Kevin Spacey accused of pedophilia,” it’s easy to see why he wrote what he did, and to be relatively certain he had professional crisis management assistance.

[+ sync]

No, my point was simply that there are a lot of women out there who are perps, too. Pretty simple. I actually know quite a few men who were molested by female's. I actually know more men who were molested than females and I have more female friends.

 

You make a good point. At the office where I was employed there was an annual mandatory-attended workplace sexual harassment seminar. At the last one I attended one of the prosecuting attorneys (female) volunteered that 25% of her clients are male. While I don't know the size of her client base, she appeared to maintain a successful lifestyle.

[Kenny]

'The Advocate' knew about Kevin Spacey's encounter with teen, but didn't speak. Here's why

USA Today NetworkBruce Steele, The Citizen-Times Opinion Published 5:00 a.m. ET Oct. 31, 2017

My magazine had a 'no outing' policy and we stood by it...

 

This is not how we wanted Kevin Spacey to come out as openly gay. When I was an editor at Out magazine and The Advocate in the 1990s and early 2000s, the magazines asked Spacey's publicists for interviews many, many times, typically getting no response at all.

 

Behind the scenes, I had long known Spacey was gay, or at least bisexual, in part because my friend Anthony Rapp had told me his story of a sexual pass Spacey made at him in 1986, when Rapp was 14 and Spacey was about 26. Rapp told me that in the mid 1990s, and we even printed his account of the encounter in The Advocate in 2001, with Spacey's name redacted, as BuzzFeed journalist Adam Vary reported in his thorough and eloquent report published Sunday night.

 

(Responding within minutes to the BuzzFeed publication, Spacey said he was "beyond horrified to hear (Rapp's) story." He did not deny it happened but said, "I honestly do not remember the encounter," nevertheless offering "the sincerest apology.")

Unlike Esquire (in 1997), the gay and lesbian magazines for which I worked never outed Spacey. At Out magazine, we repeatedly told everyone that the name of the magazine was an adjective, not a verb. We did not out people, preferring to give them the time and space to make that decision themselves, a healthier route to honesty on both sides. We were happy to pave the way, and often did, starting with Rupert Everett's coming out interview on the cover of Out's second issue in 1992.

 

At The Advocate, I had the honor to do coming out interviews with many people, famous and not so famous, including an NFL football player (Esera Tuaolo), an "American Idol" finalist (Jim Verraros) and actors such as Robert Gant. My predecessor as The Advocate's editor in chief, Judy Wieder, interviewed many more, including George Michael and Rosie O'Donnell.

 

But as Wieder describes in her new memoir, "Random Events Tend to Cluster" (Lisa Hagan Books), The Advocate had developed a "no outing" policy before I joined the staff, and we stuck to it. We cajoled, befriended and pressured, but we did not report on anyone's sexuality without their cooperation. Just as each of us had reached the decision to come out in our own time, celebrities needed the same opportunity, even if it took them years and years.

 

The result of a healthful, self-motivated decision to come out is often a stronger, more powerful person on the other side. In Wieder's memoir, she recounts our conversation about putting Nathan Lane on the cover in 1999. "I think he's waited too long" to deserve the cover, Wieder argues, but she changes her mind when I tell her what changed his mind: the murder of Matthew Shepard. Lane got the cover and gave an emotionally charged interview.

 

Obviously the situation is not the same with Kevin Spacey. Despite the Esquire story, Spacey has kept his private life extremely private throughout his career. Despite the Hollywood truism that "everybody knows" who's gay within entertainment and media circles, Spacey didn't flaunt his "secret" — unless you consider taking your mom to the Academy Awards a kind of declaration.

 

Of course, many close friends knew of Rapp's encounter with the actor in the 1980s, including some of us in the media. But what could be done with that story? There were only two people in the room, they had never met again and no parade of additional accusers was forthcoming — so, right or wrong, we told ourselves we could not report it.

 

In keeping with The Advocate's "no outing" policy, when Rapp related the entire incident to writer Dennis Hensley in 2001, we removed Spacey's name and identifying details. Rapp understood the decision, and he didn't share the story again via the news media until now.

 

Why now? That's an easy one. The Harvey Weinstein scandal and the resulting opening up of the media to legitimate accusations of unwanted sexual advances changed the rules, and Rapp felt compelled to share his story again, this time with names and dates.

 

His decision was not "to simply air a grievance," he told BuzzFeed, "but to try to shine another light on the decades of behavior that have been allowed to continue because many people, including myself, being silent. … I'm feeling really awake to the moment that we're living in, and I'm hopeful that this can make a difference."

 

It's a hope shared by many. The media's willingness now to report on behavior it long made excuses to avoid (and I don't exclude myself from that) is one thing. The real victory will be when the behavior itself is stopped, even behind the closed doors of hotel rooms and New York bedrooms like Spacey's.

 

In a statement clearly prepared in advance — he knew the story was coming — Spacey said the account "encouraged me to address other things about my life," alluding to "other stories out there about me." He asserted simply, "I now choose to live as a gay man."

 

As he asserted in his Twitter statement, Spacey may well not recall the encounter Rapp describes. It was more than 30 years ago, and Rapp says Spacey was drunk at the time. Whether what happened to Rapp was a singular mistake or a pattern of behavior may come to light in time, along with those "other stories" to which Spacey alluded.

 

The result all these revelations, and the decades of back story about what is told and what is withheld, both in Spacey's case and in Weinstein's and in so many others, should be a moral reckoning for the media. It reaches well beyond sexual misconduct. When immoral behavior of any kind is known to reporters and editors, what is our responsibility to "out" that behavior?

 

Clearly we have long erred, in certain cases, on the side of withholding until the evidence is irrefutable. That's not a sustainable standard.

 

What Rapp's revelation and Spacey's response prove is that even one person, with the story of one night, can make a difference. I will long ponder what we didn't do in 2001, I hope with concrete results about what we can do in 2017.

 

-- Bruce Steele is the planning editor at the Asheville Citizen-Times, where this piece first appeared.

I’m disappointed by one aspect of this column.

 

“Outing” is not a public declaration of the homosexuality of a public person who doesn’t want it known. Outing is public declaration of the homosexuality of a public person who doesn’t want it known but who, in a position of power, works against gay civil rights. Hypocrisy by a public person is newsworthy, sexual identity is not.

 

The distinction is important, though not well understood. I wish the column had made it.

[Moondance]

“Outing” is not a public declaration of the homosexuality of a public person who doesn’t want it known. Outing is public declaration of the homosexuality of a public person who doesn’t want it known but who, in a position of power, works against gay civil rights.

Really? When did that distinction occur? I mean, I like the idea of it, @Kenny, but this is news to me.

 

What do you call it when the sexual preference of a closeted gay person who never worked against gay civil rights is made public? Because I think there are a number of them who have been under the impression that they were "outed."

[mike carey]

“Outing” is not a public declaration of the homosexuality of a public person who doesn’t want it known. Outing is public declaration of the homosexuality of a public person who doesn’t want it known but who, in a position of power, works against gay civil rights. Hypocrisy by a public person is newsworthy, sexual identity is not.

I can understand that the word is used in relation to people who are gay but hypocritically advocate for homophobic causes. That said, I can't agree that it doesn't have a wider meaning of public disclosure that a person is gay (whether they are or not) in a way that may harm them. For example, outing a gay teenager to their parents, school or church. I don't think that a politically focused definition of the word can disallow a wider use outside that sphere, or even disallow that wider use in circumstances where the 'outing' is politically charged.

[+ bigjoey]

You make a good point. At the office where I was employed there was an annual mandatory-attended workplace sexual harassment seminar. At the last one I attended one of the prosecuting attorneys (female) volunteered that 25% of her clients are male. While I don't know the size of her client base, she appeared to maintain a successful lifestyle.

 

The labor attorney we used told me a similar figure. However, not all the men were hit upon by females; some of the complaints were of males hitting on them.

[Frequentflier]

Are you suggesting that there should be a statute of limitations on speech?

 

Or that we should disregard the many accusations against Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein that happened beyond the scope of any legal statute of limitations?

 

Did you hear Spacey suggest that he had been libeled or slandered? Or even deny the accusation?

 

1. Its not a speech issue and there are statutes of limitation on claims for libel/slander. There isn't unlimited free speech in the US, something too many Americans don't understand. The concept of free speech, as many use it, relates to prohibitions on the GOVERNMENT impeding speech or prosecuting people for it. But even the government can limit speech when it relates to secret or confidential information a citizen has agreed to keep confidential.

 

2. When the government isn't involved, speech isn't unlimited. One cannot say or write something about another which harms that person without consequences. Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/Employers can place limitations on speech and levy consequences for those who express offensively. Being held liable in a civilian court, somewhat unfortunately, often requires the plaintiff to demonstrate economic damages (someone claims a doctor groped them without proof, the doctor loses patients - income, so the doctor can - rightfully - sue the heck out of the person making the claim). If you were an actor and I made a claim without sufficient proof (think court of law proof) and that caused you to lose a lot of money you could sue me (and if I had money) likely win. Without consequences someone can say anything they want about anyone without the thought they need to be responsible or truthful.

 

3. To make my point it doesn't matter to me how Spacey responded. My primary point is its not right for anyone to make the claims that have been made over 30 years later given how society reacts because the next time someone makes a claim and its denied the person targeted will have it even harder to protect their reputation and their lives because guilt is too often assumed. The damages from any false claim, whether improper acts of a doctor/actor/whomever, can be far worse than economic.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Both of the comments below reflect that as a society we probably need to be discussing this issue a lot more, because:

 

But on that note: until executives, producers, and casting directors celebrate those people and give them the opportunities they deserve, predators like Spacey will continue to misrepresent a remarkably supportive community of good people.

 

The negative reaction I had to this statement [by a Gay Hollywood insider] is it almost sounds like it's saying that good Gays finish last, and predator Gays finish first. It doesn't say that, but it does kind of sound that way.

 

I think Spacey is a great actor. My guess is that he made it to the top because he has talent, not because he's a predator. Whatever you say about Hollywood, I've always thought it did a good job of finding and rewarding talent. Including for example forgiving anti-Semites like Mel Gibson if it turns out they are good at directing movies, or forgiving Clint Eastwood's failed routine at the 2012 RNC if he makes good movies. Meanwhile, there are no doubt many really nice Gay gays in Hollywood who just don't have the talent to make it. It would be a mistake to conclude that somehow being a predator gives Gays an advantage to climb to the top. The point is that once you have made it to the top, Hollywood seems like it is a place where it is perhaps easier than other places to use your power to engage in predatory behavior - whether you are Gay or Straight, male or female.

 

He's saying the percentage is not as low as the official stats indicate.

 

I don't think there are any good "official" stats on how many predators are female. I was the one who posted the chart suggesting over 9 in 10 predators are male. I had to search for a while to find anything, because most charts and online information relate to the characteristics of the victims, not the predators. Once I found that chart, I tried to find an attribution as to where the data came from, and didn't.

 

Now another reference has been made that perhaps 1 in 4 perpetrators are women.

 

What seems painfully obvious is that this stuff is so common and is so frequently swept under the rug that there is just a lot of ignorance about who does it, and what to do about it. What is also painfully obvious is that most people who are victims have calculated that it is in their best interest to keep their mouths shut.

 

The more people that join the #metoo club the better picture we will all have of who is doing it, how it can be prevented, and what one should be able to expect if they do come forward.

Edited October 31, 2017 by stevenkesslar

[Whitman]

My primary point is its not right for anyone to make the claims that have been made over 30 years later ...

In your opinion.

 

In mine, it is never too soon, nor too late, to speak the TRUTH.

 

I applaud Anthony Rapp for speaking up -- which, as you may have read, he was doing AGAIN, not for the first time. (I mention this only because the time frame seems to matter to you. It doesn't to me because, again, TRUTH shouldn't have a statute of limitations.)

Edited October 31, 2017 by Whitman

[Whitman]

Kevin Spacey scandal: London theater offers confidential email address for tips

USA TODAY Published 12:57 p.m. ET Oct. 31, 2017

 

Two-time Oscar winner Kevin Spacey's troubles continued Tuesday as one of his former employers, The Old Vic theater in London, released a statement saying it was "deeply dismayed" by the allegations made against Spacey.

 

"The Old Vic would like to respond to recent media reports by making it clear that we are deeply dismayed to hear the allegations levied against Kevin Spacey, who was Artistic Director from 2004–2015," the theater said in a statement posted on Twitter.

 

"Inappropriate behaviour by anyone working at The Old Vic is completely unacceptable. We aim to foster a safe and supportive environment without prejudice, harassment or bullying of any sort, at any level ... We want our employees to feel confident, valued and proud to be part of The Old Vic family. Any behaviour we become aware of which contravenes these goals will not be tolerated."

 

The theater also announced it had established a confidential email address for complaints, noting: "Any experience shared will be treated in the utmost confidence and with sensitivity. We have appointed external advisors to help us deal with any information received."

 

 

Kevin Spacey chose to engage an old and toxic myth

By Kate Maltby, CNN - Updated 7:33 PM ET, Mon October 30, 2017

 

EXCERPT: ... Here in London, where I work as a theater critic, it's possible that stories will surface concerning Spacey's behavior during his time as artistic director of the Old Vic theater. Monday morning, on the flagship BBC "Today" program, a leading British theater director, when asked about the allegations made by Rapp, said, "I think that many people in the theater and in the creative industries have been aware of many stories of many people over a lot of years," noting that "Kevin Spacey would be one of the people that people have had concerns about, yes."

[+ Avalon]

Because at least in the Rapp case this is beyond the statute of limitations there will be no criminal pursuit but maybe a civil one?

[+ stevenkesslar]

Kevin Spacey is almost certainly going to be financially impacted by this, and almost certainly has the bucks to go after Anthony Rapp. Stay tuned for it NOT TO HAPPEN. Want to guess why?

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2172515/Tom-Cruises-lawyer-blasts-National-Enquirer-cover-article-featuring-false-vicious-lies-client.html

 

Interesting point.

 

Tom Cruise of course comes to mind as one of many that use lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits, to get people to shut up.

 

Right now it just feels like a free for all, and the shit is just hitting the fan and flying everywhere. It's way too early to guess what the future standard will be, or if there will be a clear standard moving forward.

 

My guess is that Hollywood (and Washington DC) will still be places where lots of Gays operate in the closet. But in both places it will probably get harder and harder to be a successful sexual predator or an abuser, Gay or straight.

[rogerG]

This just in: Netflix is halting its current production of House of Cards, which began taping a week and a half ago. The powers that be want to review the Spacey situation a bit more closely. Personally, I wouldn't mind if Season 6 opened with Frank Underwood's fatal heart attack. Claire could continue the story and be just as devious as Frank was, if not more. A whole new cast of characters could be introduced. The show could thrive with a few more seasons. I hope they consider this an opportunity instead of a loss. The supporting players are really good and they don't deserve to lose their jobs because Spacey is a horse's ass.

[+ sniper]

I’m disappointed by one aspect of this column.

 

“Outing” is not a public declaration of the homosexuality of a public person who doesn’t want it known. Outing is public declaration of the homosexuality of a public person who doesn’t want it known but who, in a position of power, works against gay civil rights. Hypocrisy by a public person is newsworthy, sexual identity is not.

 

The distinction is important, though not well understood. I wish the column had made it.

 

No, it's outing regardless. The person having worked against gay rights is when certain people like Michael Signorile declared outing was acceptable. The definition of the term is exposing their hidden homosexuality.

[+ sniper]

1. Its not a speech issue and there are statutes of limitation on claims for libel/slander. There isn't unlimited free speech in the US, something too many Americans don't understand. The concept of free speech, as many use it, relates to prohibitions on the GOVERNMENT impeding speech or prosecuting people for it. But even the government can limit speech when it relates to secret or confidential information a citizen has agreed to keep confidential.

 

2. When the government isn't involved, speech isn't unlimited. One cannot say or write something about another which harms that person without consequences. Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/Employers can place limitations on speech and levy consequences for those who express offensively. Being held liable in a civilian court, somewhat unfortunately, often requires the plaintiff to demonstrate economic damages (someone claims a doctor groped them without proof, the doctor loses patients - income, so the doctor can - rightfully - sue the heck out of the person making the claim). If you were an actor and I made a claim without sufficient proof (think court of law proof) and that caused you to lose a lot of money you could sue me (and if I had money) likely win. Without consequences someone can say anything they want about anyone without the thought they need to be responsible or truthful.

 

3. To make my point it doesn't matter to me how Spacey responded. My primary point is its not right for anyone to make the claims that have been made over 30 years later given how society reacts because the next time someone makes a claim and its denied the person targeted will have it even harder to protect their reputation and their lives because guilt is too often assumed. The damages from any false claim, whether improper acts of a doctor/actor/whomever, can be far worse than economic.

 

Are you aware that "court of law" proof varies in criminal versus civil cases? In criminal cases you need to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the presumption is of innocence. In a civil case, there is NO presumption and the standard is "preponderance of the evidence." If you bring a slander/libel claim about something, you have to be able to prove that it was false, AND that the other person knew it to be false. Since the nature of this allegation is that you can't prove it either way, a slander/libel case is unwinnable.

[+ bigjoey]

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2172515/Tom-Cruises-lawyer-blasts-National-Enquirer-cover-article-featuring-false-vicious-lies-client.html

 

Interesting point.

 

Tom Cruise of course comes to mind as one of many that use lawsuits, or threats of lawsuits, to get people to shut up.

 

Right now it just feels like a free for all, and the shit is just hitting the fan and flying everywhere. It's way too early to guess what the future standard will be, or if there will be a clear standard moving forward.

 

My guess is that Hollywood (and Washington DC) will still be places where lots of Gays operate in the closet. But in both places it will probably get harder and harder to be a successful sexual predator or an abuser, Gay or straight.

 

Not sure to what you refer as "the future standard."

If it is libel/slander, that does change over time.

 

If it is behavior as a sexual predator or sexual abuser, that standard has always been the same: "NO." Like many standards of behavior, it has often been honored in its violation. The standard that such behavior is wrong is unchanged but the acceptance of it ("everybody knew") and the silence from the victims is what may change for the better. The sea change occurring is that the public will no longer "wink" at such behavior (think: the joke told at the Academy Awards a few years ago about the actress nominees no longer having to worry about Weinstein and the whole audience seemed to be in on the joke and knew exactly what the deal was) and the victims will no longer feel ashamed and come forward. The sooner these predators are removed, the better off we all will be.

[+ Avalon]

Disgusting that Spacey is trying to hide behind, use homosexuality as an excuse. Since Rapp was a young teen this term might describe Spacey.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

[MassageDrew]

Who knows why he waited this long to say something. Maybe he saw Kevin as a powerhouse and going against him alone would’ve buried any career opportunities. Maybe he found courage amongst all these women coming out against Weinstein. He probably felt he’s not all alone after all. Who knows?

[+ sniper]

Disgusting that Spacey is trying to hide behind, use homosexuality as an excuse. Since Rapp was a young teen this term might describe Spacey.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

If you look at pictures of Rapp from then, it's pretty clear he was not yet pubescent, so nope.

[+ Avalon]

If you look at pictures of Rapp from then, it's pretty clear he was not yet pubescent, so nope.

 

Even worse then. Spacey is a pedophile.

[+ nycman]

he was picked up "like a bride”

 

I don't believe Rapp went willingly to Spacey's bed

 

I’m still having a hard time visualizing a 26 year old male

carrying a 14 year old male “like a bride”across a bedroom

threshold if the 14 year old doesn’t want that to happen.

 

It’s damn hard enough to carry another human when they

ARE consenting. Much less when they aren’t.

 

I’m not saying that makes any of this “ok behavior” with a

minor. If it’s true, it’s clearly it not “ok”.

 

I’m just saying....30 years later...Mr. Rapp’s version of the

events still don’t make complete sense to me.

 

Either way, I hope this is bringing him some peace....but somehow I doubt it is.