There are certain people who have remained in Marilyn Manson's corner even when doing so was neither easy nor particularly popular. Sharon Osbourne has been one of them, which is why her recent comments about Manson on The Osbournes podcast caught my attention. It is not simply that Sharon defended him again. She was unusually direct about what she believes, why she believes it, and why her opinion of him has not changed. During a conversation with her son Jack Osbourne, Manson came up while they were discussing music and some of the darker personalities Sharon has known throughout her career. Sharon did not hesitate when the subject turned to Manson. “Manson is a great artist,” she said, before responding to the criticism that would inevitably follow because of the allegations that have been made against him. Sharon pointed out that “women abuse men” as well, and argued that Manson had never presented himself as someone who was “light and breezy” or simply an ordinary rock star. ...
There are certain people who have remained in Marilyn Manson's corner even when doing so was neither easy nor particularly popular. Sharon Osbourne has been one of them, which is why her recent comments about Manson on The Osbournes podcast caught my attention. It is not simply that Sharon defended him again. She was unusually direct about what she believes, why she believes it, and why her opinion of him has not changed.
During a conversation with her son Jack Osbourne, Manson came up while they were discussing music and some of the darker personalities Sharon has known throughout her career. Sharon did not hesitate when the subject turned to Manson. “Manson is a great artist,” she said, before responding to the criticism that would inevitably follow because of the allegations that have been made against him. Sharon pointed out that “women abuse men” as well, and argued that Manson had never presented himself as someone who was “light and breezy” or simply an ordinary rock star. She suggested that people who deliberately sought out his company or wanted to be around him knew something about the kind of person and artist he presented himself as. At one point she put it particularly bluntly: “You’re begging to get on somebody’s tour bus. You’re begging to get near them and be photographed. And then you know what? What did you expect?”
Manson spent decades deliberately creating a persona that was partly designed to shock people. He wanted people to be uncomfortable and make them think beyond the surface. He played with sexuality, violence, religion, power, celebrity and transgression, often deliberately making it difficult to determine where the character ended and real every day person began. That was part of what made Marilyn Manson so successful and fascinating. Sharon's point, however bluntly expressed, is that knowing the public persona is not necessarily the same thing as knowing the man behind it.
During a conversation with her son Jack Osbourne, Manson came up while they were discussing music and some of the darker personalities Sharon has known throughout her career. Sharon did not hesitate when the subject turned to Manson. “Manson is a great artist,” she said, before responding to the criticism that would inevitably follow because of the allegations that have been made against him. Sharon pointed out that “women abuse men” as well, and argued that Manson had never presented himself as someone who was “light and breezy” or simply an ordinary rock star. She suggested that people who deliberately sought out his company or wanted to be around him knew something about the kind of person and artist he presented himself as. At one point she put it particularly bluntly: “You’re begging to get on somebody’s tour bus. You’re begging to get near them and be photographed. And then you know what? What did you expect?”
Manson spent decades deliberately creating a persona that was partly designed to shock people. He wanted people to be uncomfortable and make them think beyond the surface. He played with sexuality, violence, religion, power, celebrity and transgression, often deliberately making it difficult to determine where the character ended and real every day person began. That was part of what made Marilyn Manson so successful and fascinating. Sharon's point, however bluntly expressed, is that knowing the public persona is not necessarily the same thing as knowing the man behind it.
She did not stop with the general defense, either. Sharon made her own position unmistakably clear when she said, “I don’t think that he did what they said.” She then added, “He’s a friend and always will be,” followed by, “I don’t believe half of it.” The last expression is worth noting. In British English, “I don’t believe half of it” is an idiomatic way of expressing skepticism, often with a slightly amused, dismissive, or doubtful tone. It does not necessarily mean that she literally believes half of what has been said and rejects the other half. Rather, in this context, Sharon was indicating that she does not accept everything that has been reported or alleged about Manson.
Those statements are probably the most important part of the exchange. Sharon was not merely saying that she still likes Manson’s music or that she believes everyone deserves another chance. She was expressing personal skepticism toward the allegations made against him, while making equally clear that her personal relationship with him has not changed. Taken together, her comments indicate that she does not accept the public account of Manson uncritically and that she continues to regard him as a friend.
She then told a story that illustrates one reason why she feels that way. Sharon said that one of the women very much involved in the litigation against Manson was at Soho House with Manson when she was there with Andy Gould, a prominent music manager and producer, one night. According to Sharon, the woman with Manson went underneath the table and performed a sexual act on Manson without him asking her to do so. When Jack asked whether Sharon had actually been there, she answered that she had, explaining that she was with Andy Gould. She then summarized the point she was trying to make by telling her son, “Hey, there’s two sides to every story here. You leave him alone.” Jack immediately responded that Sharon might now be called into the proceedings, and the conversation ended with the two of them joking about the incident being “one way to end a meal,” to which Sharon replied, “Yeah, dessert.”
The exchange is almost absurdly casual considering the seriousness of the subject, but the point Sharon was making was not difficult to understand. She believes that at least one of the women who has portrayed herself as a victim of Manson behaved very differently in his presence than the public narrative surrounding her might suggest. For Sharon, that is evidence that there really are two sides to the story.
There is an important qualification, however. Sharon's recollection is still Sharon's recollection. Someone reading the transcript cannot independently establish exactly what happened that night simply because she says she witnessed it. The story should therefore be treated as her account of an alleged incident rather than as a proven fact.
That distinction became particularly important to me because I heard Sharon's comments on the very day they were being circulated, and I had an opportunity to ask Marilyn Manson about them personally.
I Asked Manson About Sharon's Story
On August 27, 2026, I had the opportunity to speak with Manson at his concert in Mansfield, Massachusetts. Earlier that day, Jack Osbourne had posted a clip of Sharon's comments about Manson on Instagram. At that point I had made a somewhat silly comment under the clip from my own Instagram account, stating how Evan Rachel Wood has a documented past that directly opposes the whitewashing of her past she has attempted in recent years.
So when I had the opportunity to speak with Manson, I simply asked him what he thought about the clip Jack had shared. I genuinely wasn't sure how Manson himself would feel about Sharon publicly telling a story like this.
His answer surprised me. Manson told me that he did not mind Jack sharing the clip. In fact, I later noticed that Manson himself had liked Jack's Instagram post containing it. But Manson then made an important distinction: he told me that the story Sharon had described was not true and that he had no idea what she was talking about.
That is a very different response from simply objecting to Sharon defending him. Manson was not upset that Sharon was supporting him, and he was not upset that Jack had shared the video. What he disputed was the specific story she had told.
Manson and I both understood that the unnamed woman Sharon was referring to was almost certainly Evan Rachel Wood, given the people involved in the litigation and the context of the discussion. Manson told me, however, that he had no recollection of ever introducing Evan to Sharon. That struck me as an interesting detail because Sharon's story is presented as something she personally witnessed. If Manson does not remember ever introducing the two women, there is an obvious question about the circumstances in which Sharon would have been present for the encounter she described.
Manson also commented to me about the Soho House setting itself. He did not believe that the circumstances Sharon described were consistent with the kind of place Soho House is or with how such an incident could have taken place there.
I don't claim to know what Sharon saw that night. I wasn't there, and likely neither was anyone reading this article. But after listening to her tell the story several times, I began to notice a few things that I had not initially considered. First, when someone tells a story that indicates someone else's intent, such as the anonymous woman doing this sexual act without being asked, you have to doubt that person's evaluation of the incident, because they are presenting it only in a way they want it presented. More importantly, Sharon says that she was at Soho House with Andy Gould, but she does not say that she was sitting at Manson's table. She describes seeing the woman go underneath the table, but the wording leaves open the possibility that she was observing the situation from some distance rather than sitting directly beside Manson and the woman involved.
That matters because there is a difference between witnessing an event clearly and interpreting something that appears to be happening from across a room. It is entirely possible that Sharon saw exactly what she says she saw. It is also possible that she misunderstood something she saw from a distance. I cannot establish either possibility, and neither can anyone else who wasn't there.
What we do know is that Sharon remembers the event one way and Manson remembers it—or rather, does not remember it—in another way. That is precisely why I don't think Sharon's story can simply be repeated as an established fact. It is an account that deserves to be considered, but it also deserves to be questioned.
The Bigger Point
For me, however, the most interesting part of Sharon's comments is not whether this particular Soho House story can ever be independently established. It is what the story reveals about her broader attitude toward Manson. She believes there are two sides to what happened, she does not believe everything that has been said about him, and she continues to consider him a friend.
That is significant because Sharon Osbourne is not a casual acquaintance who suddenly decided to defend a controversial celebrity. She has known Manson for decades. Manson has been part of the same musical world as the Osbourne family since the 1990s, and his relationship with the family has continued long after the controversy surrounding him began.
That relationship has also become particularly visible in the aftermath of Ozzy Osbourne's death. Manson publicly paid tribute to Ozzy and thanked Sharon and the family following the private funeral, which he attended.
So when Sharon says, “He’s a friend and always will be,” it is worth taking that statement for what it is. She is not speaking about someone she barely knows. She is speaking about someone she has known for a very long time and whose character she believes she knows personally.
That does not make her automatically right about every allegation. But it does mean that her opinion is based on a relationship that extends far beyond the public image of Marilyn Manson.
What Sharon's Comments Really Tell Us
There is something else that I think gets lost in the reaction to Sharon's comments. She isn't saying that Marilyn Manson is innocent simply because he was a provocative rock star, nor is she saying that being attracted to his music or image means that someone could not have been harmed by him. What she is saying is that she knows him, that she has seen things that caused her to question the accusations, and that she does not accept the public narrative as the complete story.
And now there is another piece of information that can be added to that conversation because I asked Manson about the very clip that Sharon's comments came from. He told me that he did not object to Sharon supporting him or to Jack sharing the video. What he disputed was the particular story she told. He said he did not know what she was talking about and had no recollection of introducing Evan Rachel Wood, or any other accuser, to Sharon.
That does not settle the question of what happened at Soho House, but it does demonstrate something that I think is important: even the person Sharon was defending does not agree with her account of that particular incident.
For me, that makes the story more interesting, not less. It also makes me reluctant to accept the tendency to divide everyone involved into completely innocent victims on one side and a completely monstrous figure on the other. Human relationships are rarely that simple, particularly when they involve people who lived for years within the highly sexualized, chaotic and deliberately provocative world surrounding rock music, and that goes for the people who make the music and the people in a relationship with them. It is reasonable therefore to question the assumption that every person who came forward necessarily understood or represented every encounter in exactly the same way that it actually occurred. Sharon's story, and Manson's response to it, are a good example of why.
Sharon Is Still Standing Beside Him
Ultimately, I think Sharon Osbourne's comments matter for a simpler reason: she is willing to stand beside Marilyn Manson publicly. She undoubtedly knows that doing so will bring criticism, particularly given how controversial the subject remains, but she has nevertheless made it clear that she intends to continue doing so. Jack himself immediately joked that her story might result in her being called into the legal proceedings, yet Sharon still made the point she wanted to make.
When Sharon says that Manson is “a great artist,” that she doesn't think he did what he has been accused of, that she doesn't believe “half of it,” and that he is “a friend and always will be,” she is not attempting to remain neutral. She is saying that, based on her own experience of knowing him, she has made up her mind.
After hearing those words myself and then asking Manson what he thought about them, I find the most interesting part of the whole episode isn't simply the controversy surrounding Sharon's defense. It is the fact that the two people involved and have this close friendship don't even agree about the particular story she used to make her case.
Sharon says she witnessed the incident. Manson told me that he does not know what she was talking about. Whatever actually happened that night, the two accounts clearly do not agree, and that alone is enough to remind us that these stories are more complicated than the simple narratives that so often emerge online.
Sharon's larger point, however, remains clear. She believes there is another side to the Marilyn Manson story, she does not accept everything that has been said about him, and after all these years she still intends to stand by her friend.
The full podcast episode is below, and Manson comes up specifically around the 22:45 mark: