Dita Von Teese speaks out about abuse allegations against ex-husband Marilyn Manson
Aux Features Human Interest
Evan Rachel Wood and multiple other women came forward on February 1 with abuse allegations against Marilyn Manson. On the same day, label Loma Vista dropped the performer. Now, Dita Von Teese, who started dating Manson in 2001 and was married to him from 2005 until 2007, has addressed the allegations.
Von Teese shared her statement on Instagram, saying the allegations “do not match” her own relationship with Manson.
The statement reads:
I have been processing the news that broke Monday regarding Marilyn Manson.
To those who have expressed your concerns of my well-being, I appreciate your kindness. Please know that the details made public do not match my personal experience during our 7 years together as a couple. Had they, I would not have married him in December 2005. I left 12 months later due to infidelity and drug abuse.
Abuse of any kind has no place in any relationship. I urge those of you who have incurred abuse to take steps to heal and the strength to fully realize yourself.
This is my sole statement on this matter. Thank you for respecting this request.
Manson’s relationship with Wood overlapped with his marriage to Von Teese. According to People, Wood met Manson in 2006 at the Chateau Marmont, “both of us hiding in the corner of a party neither of us wanted to be at.” In a 2007 interview with Telegraph, Von Teese said that “his relationship with another girl” was one of the main factors in her decision to leave Manson.
Rose McGowan, who dated Manson from 1999 to 2001, also spoke out about the allegations on social media, expressing her support for the women. “When he was with me, he was not like that, but that has no bearing on whether he was like that with others before or after,” she said.
Manson, whose real name is Brian Warner, issued a statement on Instagram on February 2 denying the accusations. “My intimate relationships have always been entirely consensual with like-minded partners. Regardless of how—and why—others are now choosing to misrepresent the past, that is the truth,” he wrote.
40 Comments
Isn’t Dita Von Teese a complete wacko nowadays?
It seems unlikely to me that anyone normal and sane would date/marry Marilyn Manson.
I have to agree. I’ve read his autobiography and if that’s how he thinks of himself then he’s a profoundly disturbed person.
That’s what the grooming is for.
Yep. Too many people do not understand how it happens that intelligent adult victims can be groomed, but sociopaths are masters at doing it.
I don’t think that’s entirely fair after Evan Rachel Wood’s statement, maybe it’s accurate to say someone groomed and abused isn’t normal or sane but it’s not a charitable register
I suppose her parents should have kept her away from him when she was underage and he was not.
Maybe? I mean, define “complete wacko.”
Isn’t Kat Von D the wacko? Someone who isn’t me should investigate.
Can’t they ALL be whackos? Why be so limiting?
Ohhhhhhh that’s it. Got them confused
Why on earth would she write that anyone “incurred” abuse in that statement? How bizarre.
I like this answer. I hate when someone comes out and says “He didn’t abuse me,” as though that were proof the person isn’t an abuser. The reality is different people have different experiences and there are many reasons why someone might abuse one person, and not another.
It’s starting to sound like Manson was going through a drug spiral at the time. Dita Von Teese may have got off the merry go ‘round just before his actions started to become truly abusive and unhinged, which is where unchecked drug abuse can sometimes lead. That’s no excuse, of course.
It gets at the essential way that we view terrible behavior. Just like how a person can be a functioning member of their community and have children they aren’t abusing, yet still be abusing one of them. People don’t treat everyone the same way. It also annoys me that people make snarky comments about how, basically, dude looks like a creep so it’s no surprise he’s a creep. It’s a coincidence – he’s doing the same stuff bankers and priests do.
Agreed, the whole “you’ve seen him, you should have known what you were signing up for” thing is such bullshit. Most abusers don’t present as cartoon villains, they seem like normal people.
Yeah, Alice Cooper has a similar stage schtick, and he is by all accounts a decent human being in his private life. Just because someone has a creepy stage persona doesn’t mean they’re a monster in their personal life.
Exactly. Somehow people can’t wrap their minds around someone hiding what they do. Like how a guy can have a family of 4 and still be part of a major violent pedo ring.
https://www.local10.com/news/local/2021/02/03/suspect-of-violent-crimes-against-children-who-killed-2-fbi-agents-worked-as-computer-consultant/
Maybe it’s initial shock or fear of the thought of someone they were close with being horrible? IDK.
People forget that John Wayne Gacy was married all while he was murdering teenage boys. People compartmentalize.
Ok, I appreciate that words can be misconstrued, but given that this wasn’t an off the cuff remark by Dita von Teese (it’s clearly a well-crafted statement) I have to say that I personally loathed her choice of words in her statement, For example: I urge those of you who have incurred abuse to take steps to heal and the strength to fully realize yourselfFirst off, and maybe I’m being pedantic, but people usually (not always, but usually) choose to use the word ‘incur’ (e.g. a fine, a penalty, the wrath) when the person doing the ‘incurring’ had a say in the matter. Secondly, ‘the strength to fully realise yourself’ – OK, I don’t know, maybe it’s just me because I’m used to dealing with passive-aggressive people throwing shade on a daily basis, so I may be seeing it where it’s not! But it gives me the vibe of “I’m much too strong a woman to have incurred abuse – those of you who did, I urge you to take steps to deal with your weak-ass character that let that shit happen to you …”
You’re reading too much into it.She used “incurred” where “suffered” or “experienced” would have worked because incurred makes you sound smarter.“The strength to fully realise yourself” was a statement of support and encouragement to people who have been abused to break out of it. The second clause in the sentence doesn’t actually match the first one, so it’s probably just that she’s not a great writer.
See infer/imply; comprise/compose.
It’s reading more into it to assume she chose “incurred” for a reason other than that she meant “incurred.” That’s making something up entirely.
I think it’s more poor choice of words than malice. She’s a neo-burlesque artist, she doesn’t have a press secretary.
I think it’s more that there are certain “trope phrases” in our culture when talking about abuse, and it’s hard not to talk about abuse without somehow using them or seeming like you are going out of your way to avoid them – Think “victim”, “survivor” etc. I think her rhetoric is along the lines of trying to speak to “survivors” in terms of their “narrative” or “taking charge of their story”. It’s a tough needle to thread, since one can try and offer solace or support, and accidentally blunder into phrasing that sounds like victim blaming, or that someone was necessarily “broken” by their abuse and that they will now need to “pick up the pieces”, or any number of other formulations that will appeal to some and feel alien to the experience of others.It’s a sign that our society is both way ahead of where it was and that it still has difficulty in talking about abuse, that so much talk about abuse is very euphamistic – It means on one hand that euphemistic language is a way of embedding narratives that can empower people to speak up, get help, and feel like they have a shared community of support. On the other hand, it can mean that direct communication is avoided or that there isn’t necessarily a lot of space for explicit talk about what happens, and also that certain narratives that may not fit for some are sort of insisted upon.It sounded to me like she was trying her best, but these things can be hard to parse.
I agree Teese’s statement didn’t feel strong enough. Especially compared to the condemnation of Manson that Rose McGowan wrote.
I agree there seemed to be something about the wording of it that felt off. It felt very middle-of-the-road* to me.
And because Wood was involved with Manson when he divorced Teese, it definitely felt like she was subliminally reminding people of that in her statement with her mention of infidelity.
Teese has long stated in interviews that she wouldn’t countenance Manson being involved with a very young actress when they got married. It’s an open secret that said actress was Wood.*Someone below stated that Teese wouldn’t have a press secretary write it. I beg to differ: she’s had numerous endorsement deals and currently has a lingerie line. She’s performed at the Crazy Horse in Paris. Teese *definitely* has a management team at this point in her career.
And because Wood was involved with Manson when he divorced Teese, it definitely felt like she was subliminally reminding people of that in her statement with her mention of infidelity…. or she was just answering to something she was no doubt hounded about, and wanted to make things explicitly clear. i’m certain that both Dita and Rose were fielding a ton of stupid comments, questions, and accusations about this, because that’s how this world generally treats women in this situation. so, saying something like that outright would hopefully head off at least some of the follow-up “whys” and speculation (or additional accusations of hiding something). if their split was about something else, it was about something else; the end. let’s not forget that the real problem here is Manson.
OR..she doesn’t know what it means. “Vague inkling,” perhaps?
I totally agree—just because I was abused I’m not “fully realized”? I need “strength” to “fully realize” myself? No, I just needed to get the fuck away from my abuser, haha, the realization came naturally after that. From her odd word choice, I hear her letter telling me I wouldn’t have been abused if I’d been stronger and had “fully realized” myself. Maybe she’s a shitty writer, but she can fuck off with that attitude, I was a strong as shit fully realized person, got attacked by a demon, and now I’m back on track.
I think the biggest problem with her wording is that she doesn’t actually say that she believes the women who’ve come forward. “Well, he didn’t abuse me” isn’t necessarily a problem in a statement (I assume that it’s accurate), but not explicitly saying anything about the women Manson did abuse—“those of you who have incurred abuse” is a weasel phrase that generalizes things away from Manson regardless of whether she meant to use “incurred”—makes her come off hollow. It’s an especially bad look compared to McGowan, who flat-out says that she believes Wood et al. despite not personally being abused.
The norm that we should automatically believe any accusation as a means of supporting victims is dumb and actually unworkable in practice. As it happens, I think the accusations in this true are probably true due to factors like their number and what little I knew of his character. But it’s not like I have any personal knowledge and there’s no need for me to actually state an opinion on that matter. I don’t demand that she do so either. She can simply say what she knows to be the case rather than speculate.
In complete fairness, she’s a burlesque dancer not a professional writer. Which is not to say that burlesque dancers are incapable of producing flawlessly worded, perfectly structured written statements on moral and criminal allegations that their ex-spouses are subject to that demonstrate razor-sharp insight and no possible ambiguity or misinterpretation, but we probably shouldn’t hold them to the highest possible expectations of doing so either.
This isn’t the first time she’s said problematic things about such topics.
yeah that choice of words really rubbed me the wrong way too.
My main issue with the statement was her saying that if he had been abusive, she wouldn’t have married him. I absolutely get that may be true for her, but it’s not a helpful thing for someone who was married to an abusive person to hear. Often (more than likely), abusers don’t start physically or sexually abusing their intimate partners until their relationship is solidified in some tangible way (whether that be marriage, or a shared lease/mortgage, kids, etc), until it’s very very hard for the abused partner to escape.IDK. I don’t think it was malicious, just sort of blundering and not very empathetic.
It’s not just you.
Of the 2 public statements mentioned in the article, interesting you chose von Teese’s to criticize
While I agree, I more think her statement just passed through a few lawyers. Sounds to me like she didn’t want to open herself up in anyway to issues with her ex in a legal manner. Incurred was likely the word used, and is usually the word used, because it tries to be neutral in blame. Sounds like legalize to me.
I wonder if it’s because it’s Evan Rachel Wood that she doesn’t explicitly say she supports her. After all, from the timeline of things, Wood is the girl that Manson cheated on Dita with.
there were multiple women that came forward, so it doesn’t really make sense to name just one (or even limit her support to just one scenario of abuse).