Neil Gaiman accused of sexual assault

[WandsOut]

www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sandman-writer-neil-gaiman-denies-142813982.html

Story still unfolding in the news

Gaiman had hired a PR firm (Edendale Strategies) since the first allegations broke a month ago and I suppose they're doing their job (of suppressing the allegations). They're mentioned here (link 1) and there's a bit more in this thread here.

Has this Rolling Stone article been posted? Sorry if so.
www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/neil-gaiman-two-more-women-allege-sexual-assault-1235073080/

@Superlambaanana
"I'm interested in hearing more about this if you can elaborate."
I'm a bit worried if I start to elabourate I'll get to 3,000 words and still have more to say!
I think possibly one reason that the BBC and the Guardian haven't reported on this news at all is because they broadly have a "sex positive" view of sexuality, relationships, and sexual violence.
I was comparing this ignored news story about Gaimen to the Russell Brand story that broke a few years ago. The journalists involved took four (long) years to put together a story that they felt could be handed on to police for a criminal investigation to follow. So what made it newsworthy was an undeniable criminal element - sex without consent.
The part of that story that struck me as an important public conversation to have was around BBC employees procuring young women for Brand to have one night stands with when he was a kind of rock star comedian with them. There was no suggestion in those interviews that the sex was non-consensual, the young women were distressed by the experience and said things about him not even calling them the next day when they were given the impression by (female) BBC employees that Brand was interested in them in a more rounded way than for a brief sexual encounter. I don't think this story on its own would ever get into our papers - I think it only made it in as background to Brand's non-consensual sexual crimes. Because it's really very conservative, in terms of sexual morality, to say Brand was taking advantage of these young women's naivite. Isn’t that saying they don’t know what’s good for them and need the BBC to protect them from predatory males? In a sex positive worldview sex is always a good thing. Rape is not sex, it is a crime of power. There's a stark line between the two, which is consensual vs. nonconsensual. Consensual sex is never about power (or power plays) it's about pleasure and pleasure is to be maxamised. To suggest that pleasure was heightened for Brand by knowing that the young women didn’t realise it was just a hookup blurs the line between the good sort of pleasure that (always) comes from consensual sex, and the bad sort of pleasure that comes from abuses of power (rape).
My thinking was BBC and Guardian won't report on this until there is sufficient evidence in the public domain for police to press charges. But having written that I think police are saying they are carrying out interviews in N.Z. so why aren't they reporting on that?!
Sorry, a bit of a muddle in the end but I didn't want to ignore your query.

@LilyBartsHatShop thank you for taking the time to reply. Not muddled at all. I'm fascinated. I'd find it very interesting to read a blog of yours if you ever decided to write one.

I think it's more than just the Guardian and BBC (are we still calling them the left wing press or have the bbc managed to throw that off?) taking a 'sex positive' stance. It's all of society in the UK!

Now that I am old(er) I find the juxtaposition between sex I had in my 20s and sex for 20 somethings now fascinating. Consent wasn't viewed in the same way at all when I was younger. If you talked to a man in a bar and he bought you a drink you were expected to have sex with him. And we did! Or refused the drink if you didn't want sex. The idea of stopping once you were in his flat or in his bed was just unthinkable.

I was quite naive when I was young but the idea of telling a man what sex was and wasn't on offer was also unthinkable. Mind you there was no internet porn then so no choking or crazy stuff like that at least. But if he wanted a blow job, you just did it whether you enjoyed it or not (personally I have never once enjoyed that act for a moment, but have done it hundreds of times). If it was someone with a power advantage (I had a few flings with people who did have various reasons to have the upper hand, from age and job role to minor celebrity) you were definitely expected, and expecting, to have to 'make the effort'.

What fascinates me is that my friends and I were complicit in this. We did things we didn't enjoy because it was what everyone did. It was sexual liberation supposedly. In fact it was branded as the only way to get to know yourself properly and learn how to be with men to ensure you picked the right one for marrying and were able to satisfy him in order to keep him! That didn't work out too well for me as it turned out because I always found men disappointing in the end. But I look back now and think why did I put up with it - to be liked, to be 'normal', I don't know really.

Wow. I'm in my 50s but certainly don't remember a time when I felt I had to have sex with a man if he bought me a drink. I did get raped when I was 20 and it affected my sexual behaviour. I had sex with men all the time, basically to stop them from raping me. Most of them treated me horribly.

But we need to remember in the NG case that we are talking about coercive control and sexual assault. It’s not the case that the victims consented and then regretted the sex - although I think that happened to. But there are clear cases where NG broke the law.

The left wing press has a duty to the public and is supposed to report this stuff. Then again, according to them, a man is a woman so it's okay for men to hit women for sport.

Thanks @Superlambaanana - there's alot I relate to in your post.

One of the things that makes me angriest about the "sex positive" version of feminism (and it took me a long time to realise it) is that they just accept the patriarchy's definition of "sex" - there's no querying of exactly what you describe: why do young women fully accept the majority culture's understanding of what it means to have sex? Rather than saying, "I'm going to centre my pleasure in my understanding of sex and I'm going to be very negative of all sex that doesn't meet that standard!!"
I also think that idea of sex as "what everyone does" corresponds to the group-consent that trans activist women want to apply to (e.g.) changing rooms. So, if a majority of women are ok with making it a mixed sex space then that counts as consent for every woman in that space. It's creepy and insidious and absolutely I was suckered into it for a time.
@taylorswift1989 You're right there really is already a clear accusation of criminal behaviour on NG's part in the podcasts. Also thanks for sharing your experiences it does help make sense of my own story each part of another woman's I hear.

Mod of Neil Gaiman subreddit is considering shutting it down, due to Gaiman's silence:

https://www.reddit.com/r/neilgaiman/s/51V122tFCn

So, where do we go from here?

Hey everyone,

It has been challenging to navigate this situation and I understand that not everyone may be pleased with my decisions about the subreddit. There are no clear guidelines for handling this, and I had hoped for a definitive statement from Neil by now to help move us along. However, the allegations continue to surface and the future remains uncertain.

Initially, I tried to maintain impartiality and expected Neil to address the situation by either issuing an apology and making amends or challenging the allegations in court. Instead, we are met with silence, which has become increasingly conspicuous.

While I am critical of the methods employed by Tortoise Media in presenting their story, I made a commitment to provide a platform for discussion should more women come forward with their experiences. Consequently, I find it challenging to advocate for separating the art from the artist without any response from Neil or his representatives.

Although it is true that no laws have been broken, the pattern of exploitation suggested by the allegations is troubling. And while Neil is not obligated to provide an explanation to the public, the continuing silence makes it difficult to presume innocence and leaves an unfair burden of addressing these issues on the shoulders of his fans.

I’ve thought about shutting this sub down, ghosting it, and letting it burn itself out and become a hellscape. Reddit is not typically known for being a space of enlightenment and compassion but rather for trolls and overzealous moderators.

In light of this, I would like to seek your input on the future of this sub. Additionally, I am open to the possibility of handing over my responsibilities to someone else who can remain objective until a statement is made, or having others assist me. Your thoughts and suggestions on these matters are greatly appreciated and my inbox is open.

Edit: some grammar.

"Although it is true that no laws have been broken..."

Wouldn't be too sure about that. As we've said, in UK law you can't "consent" to being harmed, though I'm not sure of the law in NZ on that. And there are several accusations that would be defined as rape in there.

I think sexually assaulting your employee in a bathtub hours after meeting them is probably against the law in NZ.

Vaginally penetrating a person when they have explicitly said they do not want that to happen is also against the law in many countries (and is commonly understood to be rape.)

There are some allegations made that are in a more murky realm of coercive consent or BDSM, and I understand that people aren't sure if these events crossed a legal line. But it's very clear that laws have been broken in at least two cases that victims have alleged.

I'm also thinking that using NDAs and legal threats to silence women from talking about crimes committed against them is criminal in itself.

I agree and people have pulled him (presumably) up on it in the responses.

I think sexually assaulting your employee in a bathtub hours after meeting them is probably against the law in NZ.

Well, it would be if it was accurately seen as non-consensual sexual assault, which was my point; unfortunately, in the podcast, the NZ police (and others) seemed not to agree they'd be able to prove it wasn't, mainly because of Scarlett's texts. I don't agree with it, it was clearly part of a pattern which should count against him, but as I say, that's not necessarily how the legal system is going to work.

the NZ police (and others) seemed not to agree they'd be able to prove it wasn't

Doesn't make it legal. Just makes it hard to prosecute. It's clear you can't give retrospective consent. He assaulted her and that's against the law.

@LilyBartsHatShop
Thanks - those are really good points about Russell Brand.

I've never found Brand's sex life very interesting, but thinking of both his sheer body count and the fact that he was off his head on various substances during his most promiscuous period, the law of averages says that he had probably not always been very scrupulous about consent.

There are two interesting things about his case to me, and one is the BBC and C4 taking sex positivity to the point of basically acting as pimps. I don't think he's the only star who has enjoyed that.

The other thing is the time it took to bring him down. During his worst period he was so famous he was untouchable. But even after his Hollywood career fizzled out his fame had a long tail. He was still getting high profile gigs, Guardian columns, radio shows etc. And because he's a good performer that made sense.

But I think at a certain point (maybe 2017? maybe a little earlier or later) he stopped being fashionable. And then during lockdown he went down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole and became unfashionable.

I suppose we all went a bit mad during lockdown. But I think the first downturn in his career made him a possible target, and the second made him a tempting target, with lots of people who previously would have enabled him now willing to stick the boot in. It's depressing to think that he had to become a has-been for it to happen.

For me the impressive thing about the Gaiman expose is that he isn't a has-been. I don't think he's ever been more famous than he is now. He's certainly had lots of his work optioned in recent years. So it's taking aim at a man when he's at the top.

I don't think there's anyone quite like him in publishing. I know some authors are creeps, and some will use their minor celebrity to get their leg over, but I can't think of another who actually attracts groupies. He's more like an actor or musician in that sense.

I keep thinking about Tamara Drew by Posy Simmonds and how the grubby, manipulative, wife exploiting sleazeball of an author finally gets his glorious come uppance trampled by a herd of cows.
Wondering what form NGs retribution will take.

Yes, I know it doesn't make it legal...

I very much look forward to the comeuppance occurring, whatever form it takes.

As long as it DOES happen. I'm getting the feeling now that this is gaining momentum now rather than going away, and there will be more. But am wary of the Russell Brand effect...

Oh no feel free to judge away, my judgement was clearly askew! I guess it’s because I’m a literary sort myself (poetry in my case). I was a very bookish boy growing up, someone alienated from my peers. I got into reading Sandman way back when I was 19, and I was further curious about him when I learned he was good friends of my favourite female singer/songwriter from my early teens Tori Amos.

I have always sought out mixed friendship groups with a good spread of men and women, and some of the closest friendships I have had in my life have been with women. I guess he sort of resonated with me as very successful bloke who perhaps had a similar way of doing things as I do. Turns out not so much.

Going back to Tori Amos, she survived an attack by a fan back in her early career, and depressingly a staggering number of my female friends have confided in me similar stories. I don’t see how you can live knowing these sorts of things, and the impact they can have and STILL end up treating women as Neil appears to have done. You’d have to be a pretty calculating sort. Legalities aside (and they very much should be pursued), but leaving a trail of hurt women behind you is the very antithesis of the sort of man I aspire to be, and the man I thought Neil was.

I hope that’s helpful.

I know you know. I'm just banging on I suppose because I don't want people to forget or overlook the fact that he's raped and sexually assaulted women as well as being a more general creep.

@StainlessSteelMouse
"the law of averages says that he had probably not always been very scrupulous about consent."

Indeed. But my point is that seeking unequivocal consent is only a very recent phenomenon. Like in the last 10 years. Prior to that women were expected to have sex and it was only non-consensual/ rape in most people's minds if she became physically resistant (in many people's minds even that wasn't enough if she had gone back to his apartment/ was wearing sexy knickers etc). You were expected to stay out of the situation from the start if you didn't want sex.

Brand-era men would definitely not have bothered to get clear, unequivocal verbal consent. They would have interpreted their own desirability as enough to engender assumed consent. They may not have forced themselves on women physically but they definitely did mentally and society definitely did in terms of social expectations.

But my point is that seeking unequivocal consent is only a very recent phenomenon.

Has it actually made a difference though? I mean, I've seen stuff on here that implies it's not 'real rape' if the woman wasn't resistant. I've seen people say things like 'you make a mockery of actual rape'. In AIBU, I've seen people post about how they have no recollection of the night before and how awful and confused they feel, and be torn apart (totally different responses on the Relationships board, at least). And, as I posted upthread, a depressingly large number of people here think the initiation of rape or sexually assault while someone's asleep isn't a thing, it's just 'sleepy sex' (vomit), 'you're in a relationship for goodness sake'.

I can only really go on what I see here because it's not like these conversations are going to come up much in real life, but I get the sense that public attitude hasn't changed all that much. And that's among women, god knows what it's like among men.

Prior to that women were expected to have sex and it was only non-consensual/ rape in most people's minds if she became physically resistant (in many people's minds even that wasn't enough if she had gone back to his apartment/ was wearing sexy knickers etc). You were expected to stay out of the situation from the start if you didn't want sex.

I'm not sure this is the whole truth. I do think this is how rape was and continues to be treated by the police, CPS etc. But I think the idea that you couldn't have a drink with a man or wear something sexy if you didn't want to have sex with him isn't true. Certainly, if you were raped and it turned out you'd been drinking with the guy, this would harm your case, the same as being found to not be a virgin, or flirting with him etc.

But in terms of interactions between men and women, I don't think there was a sense that women wouldn't accept a drink off a man they didn't want to sleep with or that they felt they had to avoid male company entirely if they didn't want sex. I had lots of male friends and mixed groups where we would all drink and party together. I remember as a teen and in my twenties (so in the 80s and early 90s) there were lots of discussions about how someone buying you dinner didn't entitle them to sex. Me and my friends would go to clubs with just our bus fare home in our pockets, knowing that men would buy us drinks all night, but never thinking that we would have to have sex with them. And most of the men who bought us drinks didn't have that sense of entitlement, either. Obviously there were creeps who wouldn't take no for an answer, but most men knew that buying you a drink meant nothing.

There wasn't any concept of 'enthusiastic consent' but most of the time when I said no, it was respected. (The issue for me, as I said, was that having been raped, I didn't feel able to say no to men in case it wasn't respected.) So I do think that even in the case of RB or NG there's no excuse that 'it was a different time' because while there were differences in how the sexes interacted, it was not the case at that time that women thought men were entitled to sex with them. I'm sure there were exceptions, but generally speaking, that's not how I remember it.

I'm in my 50s and also don't remember feeling that I had to have sex I didn't want. I had lots of platonic male friends so I never thought going for a drink with a man meant I had to have sex with him, and if any man ever thought that, he was wrong. I've snogged men and even got as far as being in bed with them and still said no to full sex if I changed my mind. That was always excepted except once with a very casual boyfriend who tried to just go for it anyway. I was able to push him off easily as he was very drunk and I'm tall and strong - I recognise that otherwise I would have been raped.

I'm sure different women had different experiences and I'm not doubting PP's descriptions of doing it because you were expected to, but I generally think for me it was easier than it for a lot of girls and young women today. Violent sex like choking and slapping, and anal sex were not on the agenda and if anyone had tried that or asked me to do that I'd have ditched them immediately.

However in relationships I have done lots of BJs which I also hate, out of feeling it's a nice thing to do. One of the reasons I'm now very happy to be long-term single is never having to either do or discuss that. The idea of steak and BJ day makes me 🤑

In a sex positive worldview sex is always a good thing. Rape is not sex, it is a crime of power. There's a stark line between the two, which is consensual vs. nonconsensual.

I think it's really important to interrogate this idea - I've always felt slightly uneasy with the idea that "rape is about control not sex". Surely it can be both? Whether rape is an invading army raping women, a stranger jumping out on you from behind a bush or your husband forcing or coercing you, sexual behaviour (on the man's side) is involved. When we hear about men penetrating women in their sleep (often on MN threads) we understand that's rape. But isn't it also about the man seeing the women as his sexual possession who he should be able to use for gratification whenever he likes - yes it's about him having power over her, but it's also about him getting sex without what she wants mattering.

The history of marriage, and male-female power relationships (think slave owners and female slaves, male employers of female domestic servants, male movie or music moghuls and female would-be stars, and so on and on...) is about women being in situations where they have to provide men with sex because the men have the power - or face an alternative of losing their livelihood, home, children etc. For men as a class, sex and power have always been closely related.

I'm not saying that in every situation men hang out with women they expect sex. Of course I have also had male friends buy me drinks. But when a man fancies you, I have found that they all find it very hard to take no for an answer. And I'm very average looking. Sometimes I actually felt that being mildly attractive was a problem in itself- not attractive enough to be intimidating and men often expected me to be grateful for their attention. So many would get huffy or worse if I didn't enthusiastically reciprocate.

Even now I am over 50 and single there are a couple of men I have to avoid or engage with really carefully because I know they fancy me and are looking for the slightest 'buying signal' to pounce on. I'm not saying they would be pushy about sex but they would be pushy about going out for a date and if I said no, I know for a fact that it would have a negative impact on our shared friendship groups.

I have never been raped (I'm extremely sorry to hear of previous poster who has) and don't regret any of the sex I've had. But I have had plenty of experiences I didn't really enjoy. I just took the rough with the smooth because that's how life is, isn't it?

I've just listened to the new episode - that poor woman, and how brave.

I think Gaiman's silence becomes more & more telling each day he remains silent.

He's a man who abuses women.