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

You are cool with being cancelled. I'm not as it might happen to you or me. It just sounds medieval. I used to live in a Spanish village 30 years ago and that's how they operated. If they didn't like you for some reason you were ignored and sidelined. To me, it just sounds like a backward mentality.

I avoid being cancelled by not anally penetrating women who are young enough to be my granddaughter within two hours of meeting them. It's not a hard thing to abstain from.

cancellation is more medieval than say, unlubricated anal penetration?

gosh

what would it take to make you sympathise with a woman over a man I wonder?

You are comparing a WORIADS opinion, now protected by law thanks to Forstater, with sexual assault?

You've just jumped the shark.

and fyi, being sexually assaulted by some creepy bloke making use of his power is something that might happen to you and me too. that's how some men operate

I'd suggest not being able to see that is pretty backward. but you do you

That's villages everywhere. That's why I moved to the city.

Do not bear false witness. Calumney. I'm just uncomfortable with accusations of this kind.

crikey, well, just stepping round the fact that you sound a bit nuts...

...

..there, got round that. I'm not bearing false witness. neither party involved denies the stuff Gaiman is being cancelled for. He's a pervy man who exploited a junior employee for sex. not something you do by accident. I'm completely fine with him being cancelled for it

And I'm uncomfortable with abuses of power and manipulation of this kind.

As well as its enablers.

Rather than just throwing out accusations and name-calling can you actually answer the questions that posters have posed?

There has been some differences in views across the threads but we’ve had excellent conversation which has been extremely thought-provoking.

Just rocking up, refusing to engage, and continuing to point the finger at everyone randomly……there’s a word for that type of behaviour.

Yes, it's ever so odd isn't it?

Especially bringing "transphobia" and Maya Forstater into it.

Almost as if this isn't about the topic of Gaiman and the multiple reports about him at all.

"Who exploited a junior for sex." Well don't get into the tub naked with him and then text your mate next day saying you had great sex and then go back for some more. I wouldn't. Would you?

When my notifications said there were 52 new posts on the Gaiman thread I thought there must have been a development in the story. Instead it is just a series of appeals for reasonableness to someone who has bunkered down with their fingers in their ears singing la la la.
They are sucking up everyone's time and energy and they aren't going to shift.
I'm moving on.

She didn’t get into a tub naked with him. She had a bath, at his insistence, and he climbed in with her, without prior agreement or invitation.

That’s quite different.

And again, coercion can look like consent has been given but it hasn’t. Thats the very definition of coercion.

As we said, there is a lot more to it than this one incident

Which you don't appear to have read either. Why not?

It is the pattern of behaviour which is telling here.

By the way, "exploiting of a junior" is perfectly possible even if she appeared willing. It's the fact that he was over 40 years older than her, in a considerable position of power and she was meant to be his employee and he had only just met her, plus the gaslighting, before having anal sex with her. That's by definition abusive. Do you HONESTLY not understand that? And that people can be abused even if they say "oh yeah, it was great." You don't get tha?

Did you look up what a "fawn" response was, btw?
And can you honestly understand the coercive, abusive power dynamic there?

As others have said, that dynamic would get most employees sacked.

Since it is repeated with multiple other women and over many years, there appears to be a pattern. Once again, you don't seem to understand a great deal about coercive relationships, problematic power dynamics or grooming.

Weird.

And best ignored, I think.

Agree @WorriedMutha

How about he's fucking ugly and i wouldn't shag him if he's the last man on earth which is my reaction to him. What's the matter with those girls?

This is a thread about a serial abuser.

I'd be more concerned about what the matter is with HIM

Coercion isn't about sexual attraction.

At least one of the victims was a lesbian.

You're missing the point here, wilfully I suspect.

I would prefer a criminal trial but it is very unlikely he will get one. So instead I am reliant on assessing probability. Multiple women, who had never met, gave similar accounts. NDAs exist with nothing to be quiet about - apart from this. There have apparently been years of rumours to be careful round him. He was banned from running a course with young women.

Based on that, I'm going guilty.

Glass houses come to mind.

But it's not "trial by social media". This has been reported across the mainstream media. Numerous women have given detailed accounts of what happened to them, and he's done nothing apart from a wishy washy post about "half remembering" things. If it was all untrue he would be suing. He's not.

Notwithstanding remarks made above by the Counsel for the Defence in the Trial By Social Media. I find the accused guilty on all counts (and probably many more offences and victims so far not even mentioned).

If there was a dictionary definition of Wrong Un, I think it would also say 'see also : Neil Gaiman'

As @YourAmplePlumPoster seems to have difficulty engaging with the many excellent legal and moral questions made by PP, how about we try an easier one. Why 'especially Rachel Johnson?

If women only went to the police nobody would ever know who to watch out for. Real life doesn't work like that.

Yes, "the likes of Rachel Johnson" is a bit of a red flag as to this poster's possible agenda. What do you mean by that? What is her "like?"