Neil Gaiman Accused Of Sexual Assault Pt II

[hihelenhi]

As we're nearly at the end of the first thread, let's make sure we keep the topic current.

There have been five women now who have spoken to podcasts about the predatory behaviour of Neil Gaiman.

First thread here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5112128-neil-gaiman-accused-of-sexual-assault

Yes, that's a good point. I think however much NG was the perpetrator and instigator of abuse, it doesn't exonerate others from moral and potentially criminal responsibility.

I think the original podcasts were excellent at discussing the complexities of coercive control, and I have a lot of empathy and compassion for the women who found themselves caught up in an abusive relationship.

But there's a small child in the room and you are an adult. You have to bear responsibility too.

Bloody hell…

I've thought this too. By all accounts he was a heavy consumer of pornography, with some pretty niche sexual preferences. (And those are just the ones we know about.) Such people often escalate to creating their own content, or trading "home videos" with others.

As a famous person, I can imagine he might have been savvy enough not to put his face on camera, but I don't think he would have had any qualms about filming his victims. Even the whole "call me Master" gimmick would fit with that, as his name would never be on tape to incriminate him. And any such footage of the women, if it did exist, could be used to blackmail his victims, if he felt under threat. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he had a collection of homemade pornography. Such men often do. Partly for their own gratification, and partly as an insurance policy against their victims coming forward.

But it also wouldn't surprise me if, like Huw Edwards, NG had 'contacts' sending him videos as well. Procurers who shared his tastes. People like that tend to find each other.

I wonder what it would take to search his devices.

I’ve seen a lot of similar posts on Threads, including a gay male poster who said JK Rowling had caused more harm that Gaiman. I did challenge him on that (generally try not to get involved) and he said I must not know many queer people- of course he’s wrong but I guess lesbians that don’t sleep with men don’t count

It’s still shocking to me, even at my age, to come face to face yet again with how much men hate women.

Honestly, I don't think he does believe the women consented clearly and enthusiastically.

I think he pretended to believe that, to the women, because it enabled him to minimise what he'd done to them - and groom them into further degrading sexual acts. He could pretend it was all fine and normal and play dumb, and then pretend to be shocked and hurt, and even play the victim, with them if they ever pushed back. I think the crossing of boundaries and infliction of pain was something he found specifically arousing, so the idea that he didn't know he was doing it doesn't fly with me. Maybe in the very, very days, when he was pushing boundaries with his first victims, he could convince himself it was all a game or "it wasn't that bad". Or whatever. But by the 2000s it seems clear lack of consent was a feature for him in his sexual encounters, not a bug. He got off on it.

And now he's lying his head off, trying to make it all look like an innocent bit of autistic miscommunication, or a sex game that went a bit too far. I've seen a few conversations spring up here and there about what consent really means, and what Gaiman's concept of his own actions may have been. But to me, those conversations are all irrelevant to this case. In all the scenarios we've been presented with, Gaiman knew what he was doing. His "but I thought they were into it, I swear!" act is just an attempt to create some ambiguity. To do damage control.

The truth is he chose his victims because he knew he could push past their boundaries. He leaned on whatever pressure point he could find, and played whatever role suited him in the moment, to get what he wanted. It was all calculated. His M.O seems to have been to set his sights on a vulnerable woman, test her boundaries, push past them, and then play monster or charmer (or both by turns) to keep her in check. I just don't buy that he was unaware of what he was doing, or could be unaware now. It's just a self-preserving lie.

They really do. They don't view us as human, or with feelings, or as equals.

We'll hear in the next few days about how Hamas raped and sexually abused the kidnapped women they have just released and there will be an almighty shrug from the feminists on this forum. None of this outrage is sincere.

I get the same feeling from all of this. What's worse is that we know this behaviour escalates, and they start searching out more and more extreme content as time goes on. If Gaiman was telling women twenty years ago that "the only way" he could orgasm was by watching women be flogged on the vulva, then who knows how far his 'tastes' have escalated since then?

The article seems to go along with his (and Amanda Palmer's) assertion that The Ocean At The End Of The Lane was a way of processing the abuse he went through at the hands of his Scientologist parents. But it's possible that's all just self-mythology. It's possible there is another reason Gaiman wanted to carve out a spot for himself in the children's author space in the 2000s, at the same time his sexual fetishes were becoming all-consuming. We've already seen how he used his wife to procure sexual partners, and used their child to lure vulnerable young women into his home. I really think we should at least consider, based on the pattern of behaviour and how he treated his own child, that he pivoted to children's fiction because he wanted access to that audience. For a reason. If you catch my drift.

I hope I'm wrong, but there are so many red flags here and I hope someone is investigating them. Please.

Speak for yourself.

Feel free to start a thread on that when it happens.

On this particular forum?

No, I don't think so. You probably haven't been here very long, and clearly don't know much about the posters here if that's what you're claiming.

Because if you were, you'd know that the "outrage" (strange term to use for women's disgust at a powerful man's abuses) is very much sincere.

So shoo. Go and bother someone else with your fatuous rubbish.

Meanwhile, we'll carry on talking about Neil Gaiman, the abuser and rapist, since he's the topic of the thread. And please, don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

Thank you, this is what I think also. In particular:

"He could pretend it was all fine and normal and play dumb, and then pretend to be shocked and hurt, and even play the victim, with them if they ever pushed back. I think the crossing of boundaries and infliction of pain was something he found specifically arousing, so the idea that he didn't know he was doing it doesn't fly with me."

He knew exactly what he was doing, in my opinion. That was the fun of it. He thought he was being extremely clever, and felt very powerful being manipulative like this. As many gaslighters do. And there's quite a lot of evidence of this on the Tortoise podcast. His whole "befuddled bemused Englishman" schtick is part of this. And it's extremely studied and well-practiced. And fake.

Only recently Hamas's treatment of Israeli women got a mention on FWR, in a post critical of the broad Left. It's not at all the case that we aren't discussing it.

If he wanted to play BDSM sex games, being a Sex People type, he could have hired A prosti sex worker as all that stuff is all above board now in that circle.

But I think he maybe wouldn't have had the kick of someone who's been paid to call him master doing so, would he. It took them a good couple of months if not years to even pay that babysitter for her actual work

There are parties and clubs for engaging in that sort of activity consensually, without needing to hire a prostituted woman. Absolutely no excuse for treating those women the way he did.

What's "Sex People" a reference to?

What's "Sex People" a reference to?

It’s an Alan Partridge reference, I think?

There are parties and clubs for engaging in that sort of activity consensually, without needing to hire a prostituted woman. Absolutely no excuse for treating those women the way he did.

The problem is that would be seen in the same light as hunting tame animals - where's the fun in that ? I really can't be arsed, but the door is open for someone else to come up with the similarities between the mindset of a "big game hunter" and a sexual predator. I'd wager the same bits light up under scans.

For some people, and I'm not saying this about Gaiman because I don't know either way, the whole point is to transgress boundaries without consent, or at best with heavily coerced "consent". That's is where the pleasure comes from for that type of abuser.

That's exactly right. If the women are genuinely consenting, then it's not really BDSM, is it? The thrill comes from hurting women against their will. Kathleen Stock has a good piece on this in Unherd.

But is that then some sort of behavioural imperative ? Just because we would like for it not to be doesn't always make it so.

At the moment we - as a society - generally try to act as if it is not. Better known as "how we used to treat homosexuality".

All of which being said, part of the human condition (as far as I am concerned) is rising above instinct - arguably what makes us human. If we simply give in to instinct regardless aren't we mere animals ?

I don't just do soft and fluffy. It's just easier.

If it exists as some sort of behavioural imperative, that would be disregarding consent.

I'm talking about something different, that the most significant part of the pleasure comes from the transgressing.

But "consent" is a human construct. We return to my question about whether humans are animals, or above the animals ? Bearing in mind all human societies are predicated on us not being animals. We hope.

OK.