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

No. It's trial by social media I'm not comfortable with. The Daily Mail and Tabloids have been doing it for years. I'm old enough to remember "The News Of The Screws" revealing details of over-sexed housewives or gay vicars. It all smacks of the same prurience and zealous outing of people's sexual proclivities. Another version of puritanism.

Oh, so it's just "sexual proclivities", is it?

Oh, well, that"s alright, then.

While you’re on about Puritanism Ample Plum, have you read what the acts in question were? And his initial response that sexual degradation and BDSM weren’t illegal? That depends on consent of course, but sexually degrading someone several decades younger than you, who is vulnerable, alone in your house etc is (1) not the actions of the feminist he has claimed to be so massively hypocritical and (2) manky behaviour to some of us. Hence the “social consequences”.

Neil Gaiman enjoys hurting and demeaning women during sex. he hasn't denied that. it's BDSM innit?

he likes to hurt and demean women. I feel perfectly content judging him for that. It's not puritanism, it's understanding when someone's not right.

It’s clearly about a rich and powerful older man taking advantage of young (and not so young) women desperate for a job or housing, then pressurising them to engage in potentially harmful sex acts they may not actually want, isn’t it? If you think that’s Puritanism, you clearly have had your mind turned by kink culture.

Did you read what the women said he actually wanted? Penetration with no foreplay or lubrication, that was painful for them; and coercing them into degrading sex acts they were uncomfortable with when they were dependent on him for money or accommodation? Is being alarmed about that Puritanism? Because of so, call me Cotton Mather; and I’m glad for it.

"Sexual proclivities" is one way to describe unlubricated anal sex with an employee 40 years your junior that you met a couple of hours ago, is dependent on you for housing, has never had sex with a man and has a history of CSA.

Mine would have considerably fewer syllables, but you do you.

In a world where, as PP have said, rape is basically decriminalised, I'm comfortable with abusive creeps being judged in the media.

And in a world where all the lefty right-on outlets are closing ranks to defend the interests and feelings of wokey blokes over the safety of women, I'm not going to shit on any woman for talking to a journalist on the 'wrong' end of the political spectrum because they'll actually LISTEN.

An employee he allegedly sexually assaulted in the presence of his young child, who called her "slave".

I have no clue about "kink culture" as I'm a boring straight woman. All these allegations are just that. Would any of you people be happy if colleagues made allegations against you and you were fired even if they weren't true? We are on a slippery path here.

You are conflating consensual sex, which is absolutely a private matter, with rape.

Rape does not fall into the category of "sexual proclivities".

"I'm comfortable with abusive creeps being judged in the media." I'm not. Someone innocent might be accused.

Penetration without lube isn't just painful, it's dangerous because it can cause tearing injuries.

Your right to privacy about your sex life ends when you start putting people at risk of injuries that can require hospital treatment.

We have libel laws for that.

"Rape does not fall into sexual proclivities."
OK. Is the accusations against Neil Gaiman rape? You might find you are in potentially libellous territory here.

he doesn't deny having sex with an employee 40 years his junior. that is undisputed and is enough frankly for me to judge him to fuck.

he's also not denied the BDSM stuff either. Happy to judge him as someone who likes to hurt others and is therefore not a good person on the basis of that too.

I also believe that he groomed and coerced women into having sex they didn't want, but even if you don't believe that, isn't the undisputed stuff bad enough?

I have no clue about "kink culture" as I'm a boring straight woman.

It has nothing to do with your sexual orientation. Gaiman is a boring straight man who is also an abusive creep.

Do you think the same about Jimmy Savile? None of that has ever been to a court, has it?

Employed people have a form of due process to protect them, known as "disciplinary proceedings". Gaiman is a freelancer so he doesn't get those employment protections. That's part of the deal when you are a freelancer.

Having sex without consent is rape, yes.

So yes the accusation against him (several in fact) are of rape.

"Rape does not fall into sexual proclivities."
OK. Is the accusations against Neil Gaiman rape? You might find you are in potentially libellous territory here.

Yes it is an allegation. He'd have to sue Tortoise and New Yorker first. Which he hasn't. Why are you commenting on something you don't have any clue about? Listen to the podcast. Read the article.

"So the accusation against him is rape." OK so he goes on trial and is arrested. No sign of that so far. I don't believe anything until I see a trial.

It's not about you, is it?

Yup.

He is an abusive creep who repeatedly targets younger, vulnerable women. It appears now that some elements were "known" across the industry, the comic book community especially. but a blind eye was turned. He is being called out by multiple women. So no he isn't "innocent". And the rape accusations have been reported to police. There are also many instances reported of coercion and financial abuse. And NDAs being used liberally to silence these women.

I really couldn't give a shit that he is being called out. I'm far more "uncomfortable" that this was allowed to go on for years and that a blind eye was turned because he was deemed to have the "right" opinions and had lots of friends in high places in the media.

1. Arguably, some of them are. Ejaculating on a woman's breasts when she's said "no" is sexual assault.
2. Even if they aren't criminally rape or SA, we have the right to say that certain actions are unacceptable in some contexts and that we don't want anything to do with people who behave like that. Publishers and showrunners likewise have that right.
3. Where I work, I'm not allowed to have sex with a colleague in the same business unit without disclosing that to my line manager because of the abuses of power that can be involved in such relationships. I'm not allowed to have sex with students either, even though I don't work as an academic. Hell, the cleaners aren't allowed to have sex with students. If a total nobody like me is subject to this kind of policing of my sex life, Gaiman absolutely can and should be. Gaiman's cancellation is about his abuse of power to get sex.

So you don't believe any woman is actually raped unless there's a trial?

You're a bit naive, aren't you? Seems you're a bit of a Gaiman fan, yes? Any excuse?

It also isn't JUST about rape.

Do you understand about abusive power dynamics and coercion?

Given that rape has explicitly been mentioned by multiple reports, no I don't think we're in "potentially libellous territory" here.

Have you listened to the Tortoise podcasts or read the article at all? You seem a bit behind.

I've listened to the podcast. A dim sounding woman in her twenties, (adult) who went to his house and got into the hot tub naked at his invitation and participated in sex, then texted her friend the next day to say how great the sex was and then met up with him several times after. Struggling to see how this is rape.