Apart From the Rapes, He’s A Really Nice Guy

Mila Kunis, Ashton Kutcher and the un-shocking defense of Danny Masterson

At the height of his fame, Danny Masterson drugged, raped and assaulted multiple women.

After consuming drinks made by him, these women were left limp and powerless to defend themselves. If they woke up during the rape, Masterson hit them, spat on them and threatened them into obedience, sometimes with a gun.

He then used his position in Scientology and celebrity persona to silence and intimidate them. This happened over 20 years ago, so justice was long overdue. He was finally convicted in May and sentenced to over 30 years in jail.

Given what these women went through and the deliberate nature of the crimes, you would think he’d be outcast from his circle.

You’d be wrong.

In an attempt to ask for leniency during sentencing, his co-stars from That 70’s Show Mila Kunis and Ashton Kutcher, and a few others wrote separate letters to the judge.

If you read these letters in isolation, you’d think Masterson is a standup guy.

Both Mila and Ashton describe him as a great role model. He is a friend who discouraged drug use, a perfect role model and a ‘kind of brother others would be lucky to have’.

According to the letters, he’s an ‘extraordinarily honest and intentional human being’ with ‘innate goodness and genuine nature.’ Ashton recalled an incident where Masterson interfered in a pizza parlour when a man berated his girlfriend.

Since that's more important than the woman he raped so violently that she vomited.

Bizarrely, the same letters acknowledge the gravity of the situation, which is impossible to deny since they were written after he was found guilty. It’s just they still think that he’s a good guy.

That’s exactly the problem.

Real monsters don't look anything like the fairytales

In the movie 8MM, Nicolas Cage plays an investigator hired by a wealthy widow to find the origin of a pornographic film which turns into the murder of a teenage woman. As his work turns into an obsession, it leads him down a rabbit hole with many similar movies. He eventually finds the killer.

In the climax, Cage looks unimpressed as he pulls the mask off to reveal the killer's identity. It’s just an ordinary-looking man. To reinforce the point, the killer says, “What did you expect? A monster?”

What did you expect? A monster?

Violence is not rare.

According to the statistics, 30% of women suffer intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. In UK alone, 618 000 women and 155 000 experienced sexual assault or attempts in one year.

Approximately five children die every day because of child abuse, and 1 out of 3 girls and 1 out of 5 boys will be sexually abused before they reach age 18. Up to 1 billion children aged 2–17 years have experienced physical, sexual, or emotional violence or neglect.

Violence is not rare. Chances are you know at least one abuser. They might be in your household, that guy that serves you coffee while making chit chat or someone at work.

The monster we would like to represent as ‘pure evil’ to be doesn’t exist. It is not all or nothing.

A murderer doesn’t try to kill every person they see. A car thief wouldn’t try to steal every car. An abuser doesn’t abuse every woman, man or child.

And yes, they can have daughters, be loving fathers and husbands and raise money while treating other women badly. They could have female friends who vouch for them.

But that doesn’t mean that the abuse did not happen. Instead, they’ve hidden that part of their personality from you — or others- ready to be unleashed onto those they respect less or hold more power over.

Or when they’ve had a bad day.

Why are we so good at justifying friends' behaviour?

A particular encounter with a narcissistic boss left me on the edge of a full nervous breakdown. When I asked my colleague how no one had spotted this previously, her response was very honest. ‘I’d like to think that I’m a better judge of character and he couldn’t fool me’.

Whether we like to admit it or not, we don't like to be proven wrong. In that sense, it's easy to justify some behaviour as a one-off. Yes, maybe he did something bad, but that doesn't mean he’s a bad person. Much easier than swallowing our pride and admitting we were wrong about someone.

There’s also social identity theory with studies like this one and this one which show that we see something as more favourable when someone from our ‘community’ does it.

Since both Kutchers are advocates for women’s rights, and this theory explains why they view rapes committed by their friend — a member of their community- as not as bad as those, say, by a Russian soldier in Ukraine.

It could also be due to cognitive dissonance — a mental discomfort resulting from holding conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. We want everything to fit into a nice, neat box.

It’s less taxing to think that someone is always good or always bad. This also explains the reason why attractive people earn more and are less likely to end up in jail or end up with lighter sentences.

Or why it’s easy to assume that when someone is bad, they are pure bad. However, that’s not always the case. Jimmy Savill, one of the most prolific child offenders in the UK, raised over £40m for charity. At the same time, he assaulted over 400 people.

After the letters came out for the public to read and caused a lot of bad PR, Kutcher and Kunis apologized for the ‘pain they caused’.

They said that these letters ‘were intended for the judge to read and not to undermine the testimony of the victims or retraumatize them in any way. We would never want to do that, and we’re sorry if that has taken place.’

They even released an apology video where they say that they ‘support victims’ and the letters were ‘not meant to undermine the testimony of the victims’, and their ‘heart goes out to every single person who’s ever been a victim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or rape’.

Although the apology was more about the pain than what they did, I believe them about supporting victims. They have previously raised $30 million for Ukraine refugees, and as I mentioned, they advocated for women.

But here lies the problem. You cannot be for the victims while at the same time insisting on leniency for the perpetrators.

You cannot be for the victims while at the same time insisting on leniency for the perpetrators.

Sexual abusers are not idle or passive standbys who happen to do the wrong thing or who cannot help themselves. These are deliberately calculating [mostly] men who plan, target and execute their crimes. Then, they often try to hide these crimes, silence and intimidate the victims.

They are the aggressors, not the victims. They do not require advocates. No crime has been committed against them, and they are not the injured party.

In many places, sexual abuse is a well-known open secret.

Like in the comedy with Russell Brand. Or with Weinstein. Or Jimmy Savill. Or Epstein. Or boyscouts. Or the church.

These secrets are enabled by men and women turning a blind eye or finding a way to justify the unjustifiable.

Sexual violence will not stop until these justifications stop. Until we start caring more about the lives affected by the crimes committed and not the comfort of criminals.

How can this happen in a culture where we go out of our way to excuse the perpetrators?

Or when, in theory, it's bad — but only when committed by a hooded thug on the street and not one of our friends. When we say we trust and support the victims, but at the same time, we go out of our way to excuse abusers.

When we recognise the crime but still think that its not as important as the criminal.

We cannot pick and choose who rules protect — they cover everyone or no one.

I repeat.

You cannot be for both the victims and the abusers.

Follow Bitchy for more stories like this. If you’re interested in writing personal stories or persuasive essays/opinions and connecting with your peers in a supportive environment, join us here.