Neil Gaiman article in Vulture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gaiman's Scientology background: https://www.mikerindersblog.org/neil-gaimans-scientology-suicide-story/

Off topic. But this article led me to see Mike Rinder passed away on January 5, 2025. That’s so sad. He did such good work to shrink Scientology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gaiman's Scientology background: https://www.mikerindersblog.org/neil-gaimans-scientology-suicide-story/

I mean, is this meant to be an excuse?

I viewed the inclusion of this article as saying NG’s violent behavior is an extension of the violent and abusive Scientology organization. Rinder created documentaries with Leah Remini exposing abuse.

So I didn’t view it as an excuse. But strange David Miscavige can get away with anything like disappearing his wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gaiman's Scientology background: https://www.mikerindersblog.org/neil-gaimans-scientology-suicide-story/

I mean, is this meant to be an excuse?

I think of it more as a partial explanation for how someone becomes the sort of person who does what Gaiman is accused of doing.

Most people who commit horrific acts of violence against other people had really messed up childhoods. It's incredibly common.

A lot of people who had really messed-up childhoods don’t commit horrific acts of violence. Don’t try to excuse the behavior.

Also, I’m not sure I’d take the word of a blogger who sounds crazy himself.

You don’t seem to know who Mike Rinder was. He was high up in the Scientology organization as a spokesperson and perpetuated abuse until he could no longer do it. He then left the organization—was followed and spied on by Scientology, including people hired to pretend to be his friend and to search his trash—and worked to expose the violence and abuse of this fake church, which threatened individual IRS employees in order to get nonprofit status.

You will see no US President will speak out against them. That’s how powerful they are.

This connects to Neil. Scientology has the Sea Org where minor children would go to live on the open sea (no laws) with the cult founder Hubbard (died 1986). What could go wrong with an old man and all those young children on the lawless sea without oversight.

But you can see where Neil might have learned his tricks to get vulnerable victims and take them somewhere remote. Same idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Amanda Palmer is getting enough hate on this thread. She not only served him up vulnerable young women, she was also complicit in making them vulnerable. I was so angry that nanny wasn’t paid until months later. She had no support system and no money- the power differential there would make it very difficult for her to say no.

Amanda Palmer also love bombed fans to get them to do her favors and often didn’t pay. While people were probably excited by her fame, it’s a shitty thing to do. That pales in comparison to some of the other allegations.

I find it fascinating comparing the level of hate (and death/rape threats, etc) that JK Rowling gets compared to the lack of response to Gaiman and Palmer’s actions.

What's fascinating about it? Gaiman's stuff has only been recently made publuc. I find both to be gross people who need to shut up, leave social media and do some self-reflection.

Wow insane comparison. Gaiman is an abuser -- he physically and psychologically targeted and harmed these women. JK Rowling has what I believe are misguided ideas about transgendered people. That's not the same.

JK Rowling is, at heart, trying to safeguard vulnerable women. People can disagree with her beliefs but she puts her money where her mouth is as far as protecting vulnerable women.

Gaiman, on the other hand, is alleged to have raped vulnerable women and exploited his child in a grotesque manner. The idea of anyone trying to equate the two is shocking.

PP here and I agree with you. It's actually a bizarrely comical comparison because it's like what are the standards for successful, famous women versus successful, famous men? Well for women we need them to share all our beliefs and political positions and live up to an idealized version of them in our heads that has never actually existed in real life. And for men we'd just prefer they not be rapists but also a little raping is okay, especially if they just rape women we didn't like anyway.

Right, I mean it is crazy the deference that Gaiman is getting. Rowling takes a position that is unpopular and gets thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, extremely vicious rape and death threats. Gaiman is alleged to have committed grotesque atrocities against very vulnerable women and his own child, and the literary world and readers — many of whom cheered how Rowling was treated — bands together in silence.

And you’re right, the message seems to be that for men, a little raping is okay and it was probably the fault of these women we didn’t like anyhow.

I wish we’d abandon the pretense that famous left-leaning men with power act any differently towards vulnerable women than famous right-leaning men with power. There is no difference.

FP. It is the silence of the crackling fire of his books burning and his TV show contracts being rewritten or cancelled.

That is almost certainly temporary. Watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Amanda Palmer is getting enough hate on this thread. She not only served him up vulnerable young women, she was also complicit in making them vulnerable. I was so angry that nanny wasn’t paid until months later. She had no support system and no money- the power differential there would make it very difficult for her to say no.

Amanda Palmer also love bombed fans to get them to do her favors and often didn’t pay. While people were probably excited by her fame, it’s a shitty thing to do. That pales in comparison to some of the other allegations.

I find it fascinating comparing the level of hate (and death/rape threats, etc) that JK Rowling gets compared to the lack of response to Gaiman and Palmer’s actions.

What's fascinating about it? Gaiman's stuff has only been recently made publuc. I find both to be gross people who need to shut up, leave social media and do some self-reflection.

Wow insane comparison. Gaiman is an abuser -- he physically and psychologically targeted and harmed these women. JK Rowling has what I believe are misguided ideas about transgendered people. That's not the same.

JK Rowling is, at heart, trying to safeguard vulnerable women. People can disagree with her beliefs but she puts her money where her mouth is as far as protecting vulnerable women.

Gaiman, on the other hand, is alleged to have raped vulnerable women and exploited his child in a grotesque manner. The idea of anyone trying to equate the two is shocking.

PP here and I agree with you. It's actually a bizarrely comical comparison because it's like what are the standards for successful, famous women versus successful, famous men? Well for women we need them to share all our beliefs and political positions and live up to an idealized version of them in our heads that has never actually existed in real life. And for men we'd just prefer they not be rapists but also a little raping is okay, especially if they just rape women we didn't like anyway.

Right, I mean it is crazy the deference that Gaiman is getting. Rowling takes a position that is unpopular and gets thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, extremely vicious rape and death threats. Gaiman is alleged to have committed grotesque atrocities against very vulnerable women and his own child, and the literary world and readers — many of whom cheered how Rowling was treated — bands together in silence.

And you’re right, the message seems to be that for men, a little raping is okay and it was probably the fault of these women we didn’t like anyhow.

I wish we’d abandon the pretense that famous left-leaning men with power act any differently towards vulnerable women than famous right-leaning men with power. There is no difference.

FP. It is the silence of the crackling fire of his books burning and his TV show contracts being rewritten or cancelled.

That is almost certainly temporary. Watch.

Nope. His readership is gone.

[Anonymous]

Please stop comparing Neil Gaiman to J. K. Rowling. It’s not the same situation, it’s not comparable. Less apples to oranges, more bitter melon to zoological poop knives (but far less humane).

The only thing they have in common is that they are both authors that may have had overlapping fandoms.


Having read both voraciously they’re both chucked into the sea for me. For different reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gaiman's Scientology background: https://www.mikerindersblog.org/neil-gaimans-scientology-suicide-story/

I mean, is this meant to be an excuse?

I think of it more as a partial explanation for how someone becomes the sort of person who does what Gaiman is accused of doing.

Most people who commit horrific acts of violence against other people had really messed up childhoods. It's incredibly common.

A lot of people who had really messed-up childhoods don’t commit horrific acts of violence. Don’t try to excuse the behavior.

Also, I’m not sure I’d take the word of a blogger who sounds crazy himself.

You don’t seem to know who Mike Rinder was. He was high up in the Scientology organization as a spokesperson and perpetuated abuse until he could no longer do it. He then left the organization—was followed and spied on by Scientology, including people hired to pretend to be his friend and to search his trash—and worked to expose the violence and abuse of this fake church, which threatened individual IRS employees in order to get nonprofit status.

You will see no US President will speak out against them. That’s how powerful they are.

This connects to Neil. Scientology has the Sea Org where minor children would go to live on the open sea (no laws) with the cult founder Hubbard (died 1986). What could go wrong with an old man and all those young children on the lawless sea without oversight.

But you can see where Neil might have learned his tricks to get vulnerable victims and take them somewhere remote. Same idea.

Thank you. I was trying to understand why he mentioned kids being put down in the hold.

No excuses. The context helps.

Shudder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Amanda Palmer is getting enough hate on this thread. She not only served him up vulnerable young women, she was also complicit in making them vulnerable. I was so angry that nanny wasn’t paid until months later. She had no support system and no money- the power differential there would make it very difficult for her to say no.

Amanda Palmer also love bombed fans to get them to do her favors and often didn’t pay. While people were probably excited by her fame, it’s a shitty thing to do. That pales in comparison to some of the other allegations.

I find it fascinating comparing the level of hate (and death/rape threats, etc) that JK Rowling gets compared to the lack of response to Gaiman and Palmer’s actions.

What's fascinating about it? Gaiman's stuff has only been recently made publuc. I find both to be gross people who need to shut up, leave social media and do some self-reflection.

Wow insane comparison. Gaiman is an abuser -- he physically and psychologically targeted and harmed these women. JK Rowling has what I believe are misguided ideas about transgendered people. That's not the same.

JK Rowling is, at heart, trying to safeguard vulnerable women. People can disagree with her beliefs but she puts her money where her mouth is as far as protecting vulnerable women.

Gaiman, on the other hand, is alleged to have raped vulnerable women and exploited his child in a grotesque manner. The idea of anyone trying to equate the two is shocking.

PP here and I agree with you. It's actually a bizarrely comical comparison because it's like what are the standards for successful, famous women versus successful, famous men? Well for women we need them to share all our beliefs and political positions and live up to an idealized version of them in our heads that has never actually existed in real life. And for men we'd just prefer they not be rapists but also a little raping is okay, especially if they just rape women we didn't like anyway.

DP. Extremely well put, PP. Thank you. And I say that as someone who thinks Rowling has gone wildly off the rails, and toxically equates trashing trans people with "protecting women" (as a different PP called it). But there is no legit comparision to make between Rowling's twisted thinking and Gaiman's twisted behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gaiman's Scientology background: https://www.mikerindersblog.org/neil-gaimans-scientology-suicide-story/

Off topic. But this article led me to see Mike Rinder passed away on January 5, 2025. That’s so sad. He did such good work to shrink Scientology.

He and Leah Remini deserve tremendous gratitude and support for taking on the behemoth. They were/are genuinely brave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please stop comparing Neil Gaiman to J. K. Rowling. It’s not the same situation, it’s not comparable. Less apples to oranges, more bitter melon to zoological poop knives (but far less humane).

The only thing they have in common is that they are both authors that may have had overlapping fandoms.


Having read both voraciously they’re both chucked into the sea for me. For different reasons.

I think it is worth observing the difference in treatment between a woman who voices an opinion that some people dislike and a man who commits horrific crimes against women and his own child. This is not apples and oranges. It is misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Amanda Palmer is getting enough hate on this thread. She not only served him up vulnerable young women, she was also complicit in making them vulnerable. I was so angry that nanny wasn’t paid until months later. She had no support system and no money- the power differential there would make it very difficult for her to say no.

Amanda Palmer also love bombed fans to get them to do her favors and often didn’t pay. While people were probably excited by her fame, it’s a shitty thing to do. That pales in comparison to some of the other allegations.

I find it fascinating comparing the level of hate (and death/rape threats, etc) that JK Rowling gets compared to the lack of response to Gaiman and Palmer’s actions.

What's fascinating about it? Gaiman's stuff has only been recently made publuc. I find both to be gross people who need to shut up, leave social media and do some self-reflection.

Wow insane comparison. Gaiman is an abuser -- he physically and psychologically targeted and harmed these women. JK Rowling has what I believe are misguided ideas about transgendered people. That's not the same.

JK Rowling is, at heart, trying to safeguard vulnerable women. People can disagree with her beliefs but she puts her money where her mouth is as far as protecting vulnerable women.

Gaiman, on the other hand, is alleged to have raped vulnerable women and exploited his child in a grotesque manner. The idea of anyone trying to equate the two is shocking.

PP here and I agree with you. It's actually a bizarrely comical comparison because it's like what are the standards for successful, famous women versus successful, famous men? Well for women we need them to share all our beliefs and political positions and live up to an idealized version of them in our heads that has never actually existed in real life. And for men we'd just prefer they not be rapists but also a little raping is okay, especially if they just rape women we didn't like anyway.

Right, I mean it is crazy the deference that Gaiman is getting. Rowling takes a position that is unpopular and gets thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, extremely vicious rape and death threats. Gaiman is alleged to have committed grotesque atrocities against very vulnerable women and his own child, and the literary world and readers — many of whom cheered how Rowling was treated — bands together in silence.

And you’re right, the message seems to be that for men, a little raping is okay and it was probably the fault of these women we didn’t like anyhow.

I wish we’d abandon the pretense that famous left-leaning men with power act any differently towards vulnerable women than famous right-leaning men with power. There is no difference.

FP. It is the silence of the crackling fire of his books burning and his TV show contracts being rewritten or cancelled.

That is almost certainly temporary. Watch.

Nope. His readership is gone.

I disagree. I think that if he does a fake forgiveness tour in a year or two in which he “reflects” on his actions, he will be widely embraced by his core readership. Also, watch for PR leaks in the meantime that subtly trash all his accusers. He has the money to buy and orchestrate a planned return, and the cultlike reader pool to support that return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Amanda Palmer is getting enough hate on this thread. She not only served him up vulnerable young women, she was also complicit in making them vulnerable. I was so angry that nanny wasn’t paid until months later. She had no support system and no money- the power differential there would make it very difficult for her to say no.

Amanda Palmer also love bombed fans to get them to do her favors and often didn’t pay. While people were probably excited by her fame, it’s a shitty thing to do. That pales in comparison to some of the other allegations.

I find it fascinating comparing the level of hate (and death/rape threats, etc) that JK Rowling gets compared to the lack of response to Gaiman and Palmer’s actions.

What's fascinating about it? Gaiman's stuff has only been recently made publuc. I find both to be gross people who need to shut up, leave social media and do some self-reflection.

Wow insane comparison. Gaiman is an abuser -- he physically and psychologically targeted and harmed these women. JK Rowling has what I believe are misguided ideas about transgendered people. That's not the same.

JK Rowling is, at heart, trying to safeguard vulnerable women. People can disagree with her beliefs but she puts her money where her mouth is as far as protecting vulnerable women.

Gaiman, on the other hand, is alleged to have raped vulnerable women and exploited his child in a grotesque manner. The idea of anyone trying to equate the two is shocking.

PP here and I agree with you. It's actually a bizarrely comical comparison because it's like what are the standards for successful, famous women versus successful, famous men? Well for women we need them to share all our beliefs and political positions and live up to an idealized version of them in our heads that has never actually existed in real life. And for men we'd just prefer they not be rapists but also a little raping is okay, especially if they just rape women we didn't like anyway.

Right, I mean it is crazy the deference that Gaiman is getting. Rowling takes a position that is unpopular and gets thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, extremely vicious rape and death threats. Gaiman is alleged to have committed grotesque atrocities against very vulnerable women and his own child, and the literary world and readers — many of whom cheered how Rowling was treated — bands together in silence.

And you’re right, the message seems to be that for men, a little raping is okay and it was probably the fault of these women we didn’t like anyhow.

I wish we’d abandon the pretense that famous left-leaning men with power act any differently towards vulnerable women than famous right-leaning men with power. There is no difference.

FP. It is the silence of the crackling fire of his books burning and his TV show contracts being rewritten or cancelled.

That is almost certainly temporary. Watch.

Nope. His readership is gone.

I disagree. I think that if he does a fake forgiveness tour in a year or two in which he “reflects” on his actions, he will be widely embraced by his core readership. Also, watch for PR leaks in the meantime that subtly trash all his accusers. He has the money to buy and orchestrate a planned return, and the cultlike reader pool to support that return.

Absolutely 💯

This is a country that voted a rapist in as President. Men can get away with anything as long as there is the tiniest shade of ambiguity to their actions. This is already being framed as an issue of consent and the women in the article themselves admit that they “consented” to some, not all of these acts. That ambiguity is going to be used as a shield by him and he’ll come out of this just fine in a few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Amanda Palmer is getting enough hate on this thread. She not only served him up vulnerable young women, she was also complicit in making them vulnerable. I was so angry that nanny wasn’t paid until months later. She had no support system and no money- the power differential there would make it very difficult for her to say no.

Amanda Palmer also love bombed fans to get them to do her favors and often didn’t pay. While people were probably excited by her fame, it’s a shitty thing to do. That pales in comparison to some of the other allegations.

I find it fascinating comparing the level of hate (and death/rape threats, etc) that JK Rowling gets compared to the lack of response to Gaiman and Palmer’s actions.

What's fascinating about it? Gaiman's stuff has only been recently made publuc. I find both to be gross people who need to shut up, leave social media and do some self-reflection.

Wow insane comparison. Gaiman is an abuser -- he physically and psychologically targeted and harmed these women. JK Rowling has what I believe are misguided ideas about transgendered people. That's not the same.

JK Rowling is, at heart, trying to safeguard vulnerable women. People can disagree with her beliefs but she puts her money where her mouth is as far as protecting vulnerable women.

Gaiman, on the other hand, is alleged to have raped vulnerable women and exploited his child in a grotesque manner. The idea of anyone trying to equate the two is shocking.

PP here and I agree with you. It's actually a bizarrely comical comparison because it's like what are the standards for successful, famous women versus successful, famous men? Well for women we need them to share all our beliefs and political positions and live up to an idealized version of them in our heads that has never actually existed in real life. And for men we'd just prefer they not be rapists but also a little raping is okay, especially if they just rape women we didn't like anyway.

Right, I mean it is crazy the deference that Gaiman is getting. Rowling takes a position that is unpopular and gets thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, extremely vicious rape and death threats. Gaiman is alleged to have committed grotesque atrocities against very vulnerable women and his own child, and the literary world and readers — many of whom cheered how Rowling was treated — bands together in silence.

And you’re right, the message seems to be that for men, a little raping is okay and it was probably the fault of these women we didn’t like anyhow.

I wish we’d abandon the pretense that famous left-leaning men with power act any differently towards vulnerable women than famous right-leaning men with power. There is no difference.

FP. It is the silence of the crackling fire of his books burning and his TV show contracts being rewritten or cancelled.

That is almost certainly temporary. Watch.

Nope. His readership is gone.

I disagree. I think that if he does a fake forgiveness tour in a year or two in which he “reflects” on his actions, he will be widely embraced by his core readership. Also, watch for PR leaks in the meantime that subtly trash all his accusers. He has the money to buy and orchestrate a planned return, and the cultlike reader pool to support that return.

Absolutely 💯

This is a country that voted a rapist in as President. Men can get away with anything as long as there is the tiniest shade of ambiguity to their actions. This is already being framed as an issue of consent and the women in the article themselves admit that they “consented” to some, not all of these acts. That ambiguity is going to be used as a shield by him and he’ll come out of this just fine in a few years.

Agreed. This is why the comparisons to Rowling are good to highlight. Their reader base overlaps, or at least did. And in a few years, that reader base will actively seek to forgive Gaiman and celebrate his forgiveness PR campaign (and will blame and attack his victims), while Rowling will still be getting graphic death and rape threats from the same people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Amanda Palmer is getting enough hate on this thread. She not only served him up vulnerable young women, she was also complicit in making them vulnerable. I was so angry that nanny wasn’t paid until months later. She had no support system and no money- the power differential there would make it very difficult for her to say no.

Amanda Palmer also love bombed fans to get them to do her favors and often didn’t pay. While people were probably excited by her fame, it’s a shitty thing to do. That pales in comparison to some of the other allegations.

I find it fascinating comparing the level of hate (and death/rape threats, etc) that JK Rowling gets compared to the lack of response to Gaiman and Palmer’s actions.

What's fascinating about it? Gaiman's stuff has only been recently made publuc. I find both to be gross people who need to shut up, leave social media and do some self-reflection.

Wow insane comparison. Gaiman is an abuser -- he physically and psychologically targeted and harmed these women. JK Rowling has what I believe are misguided ideas about transgendered people. That's not the same.

JK Rowling is, at heart, trying to safeguard vulnerable women. People can disagree with her beliefs but she puts her money where her mouth is as far as protecting vulnerable women.

Gaiman, on the other hand, is alleged to have raped vulnerable women and exploited his child in a grotesque manner. The idea of anyone trying to equate the two is shocking.

PP here and I agree with you. It's actually a bizarrely comical comparison because it's like what are the standards for successful, famous women versus successful, famous men? Well for women we need them to share all our beliefs and political positions and live up to an idealized version of them in our heads that has never actually existed in real life. And for men we'd just prefer they not be rapists but also a little raping is okay, especially if they just rape women we didn't like anyway.

Right, I mean it is crazy the deference that Gaiman is getting. Rowling takes a position that is unpopular and gets thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, extremely vicious rape and death threats. Gaiman is alleged to have committed grotesque atrocities against very vulnerable women and his own child, and the literary world and readers — many of whom cheered how Rowling was treated — bands together in silence.

And you’re right, the message seems to be that for men, a little raping is okay and it was probably the fault of these women we didn’t like anyhow.

I wish we’d abandon the pretense that famous left-leaning men with power act any differently towards vulnerable women than famous right-leaning men with power. There is no difference.

FP. It is the silence of the crackling fire of his books burning and his TV show contracts being rewritten or cancelled.

That is almost certainly temporary. Watch.

Nope. His readership is gone.

I disagree. I think that if he does a fake forgiveness tour in a year or two in which he “reflects” on his actions, he will be widely embraced by his core readership. Also, watch for PR leaks in the meantime that subtly trash all his accusers. He has the money to buy and orchestrate a planned return, and the cultlike reader pool to support that return.

I will be curious to see how it unfolds because (as I pointed out upthread) I think he and Palmer were able to conceal the extent of his behavior for years by disguising it under polyamory and "alternative lifestyle," which has a built in defense to any accusations that involve violating someone else's boundaries -- "oh they are just not open minded." I am very familiar with this method for manipulation and abuse because it happened to me. Not to the degree of what happened to some of these women (I was older and less vulnerable though still in a compromised situation which is why I was targeted), but a very similar pattern. And the use of a polyamorous community to enable an abuser is very familiar to me.

Trying to have a conversation with people from the community where I was abused about any of this wound up being pointless. If people say Palmer groomed some of these women and passed them off to Gaiman once they'd been screened/primed for him, they will be accused of "kink shaming" Palmer for being polyamorous and bi- or pansexual. If people take issue with how grotesque some of these sex acts were and how Gaiman was clearly trying to violate boundaries (he clearly gets off on making people do things that they don't feel comfortable with or that shame them, this was also a thing with the person who abused me), expect to see lots of condescending explanations about BDSM and once again, accusations that people who criticize Gaiman's actions are "kink shaming."

These people have basically created a sexuality that normalizes abuse, manipulation, disrespect for boundaries, lack of consent, and humiliation. But when you point this out, you will be told that you are the problem, that the issue is your close mindedness and intolerance.

I know there will be defenders among his ardent fans, especially those who really embraced Gaiman and Palmer as a "polyamorous power couple." I'll be curious how far this extends though. Like how complete is the communal delusion that condones this behavior as just a kink or even as a superior and more evolved approach to sex and relationships than whatever the critics engage in? We'll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Amanda Palmer is getting enough hate on this thread. She not only served him up vulnerable young women, she was also complicit in making them vulnerable. I was so angry that nanny wasn’t paid until months later. She had no support system and no money- the power differential there would make it very difficult for her to say no.

Amanda Palmer also love bombed fans to get them to do her favors and often didn’t pay. While people were probably excited by her fame, it’s a shitty thing to do. That pales in comparison to some of the other allegations.

I find it fascinating comparing the level of hate (and death/rape threats, etc) that JK Rowling gets compared to the lack of response to Gaiman and Palmer’s actions.

What's fascinating about it? Gaiman's stuff has only been recently made publuc. I find both to be gross people who need to shut up, leave social media and do some self-reflection.

Wow insane comparison. Gaiman is an abuser -- he physically and psychologically targeted and harmed these women. JK Rowling has what I believe are misguided ideas about transgendered people. That's not the same.

JK Rowling is, at heart, trying to safeguard vulnerable women. People can disagree with her beliefs but she puts her money where her mouth is as far as protecting vulnerable women.

Gaiman, on the other hand, is alleged to have raped vulnerable women and exploited his child in a grotesque manner. The idea of anyone trying to equate the two is shocking.

PP here and I agree with you. It's actually a bizarrely comical comparison because it's like what are the standards for successful, famous women versus successful, famous men? Well for women we need them to share all our beliefs and political positions and live up to an idealized version of them in our heads that has never actually existed in real life. And for men we'd just prefer they not be rapists but also a little raping is okay, especially if they just rape women we didn't like anyway.

Right, I mean it is crazy the deference that Gaiman is getting. Rowling takes a position that is unpopular and gets thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, extremely vicious rape and death threats. Gaiman is alleged to have committed grotesque atrocities against very vulnerable women and his own child, and the literary world and readers — many of whom cheered how Rowling was treated — bands together in silence.

And you’re right, the message seems to be that for men, a little raping is okay and it was probably the fault of these women we didn’t like anyhow.

I wish we’d abandon the pretense that famous left-leaning men with power act any differently towards vulnerable women than famous right-leaning men with power. There is no difference.

FP. It is the silence of the crackling fire of his books burning and his TV show contracts being rewritten or cancelled.

That is almost certainly temporary. Watch.

Nope. His readership is gone.

I disagree. I think that if he does a fake forgiveness tour in a year or two in which he “reflects” on his actions, he will be widely embraced by his core readership. Also, watch for PR leaks in the meantime that subtly trash all his accusers. He has the money to buy and orchestrate a planned return, and the cultlike reader pool to support that return.

I will be curious to see how it unfolds because (as I pointed out upthread) I think he and Palmer were able to conceal the extent of his behavior for years by disguising it under polyamory and "alternative lifestyle," which has a built in defense to any accusations that involve violating someone else's boundaries -- "oh they are just not open minded." I am very familiar with this method for manipulation and abuse because it happened to me. Not to the degree of what happened to some of these women (I was older and less vulnerable though still in a compromised situation which is why I was targeted), but a very similar pattern. And the use of a polyamorous community to enable an abuser is very familiar to me.

Trying to have a conversation with people from the community where I was abused about any of this wound up being pointless. If people say Palmer groomed some of these women and passed them off to Gaiman once they'd been screened/primed for him, they will be accused of "kink shaming" Palmer for being polyamorous and bi- or pansexual. If people take issue with how grotesque some of these sex acts were and how Gaiman was clearly trying to violate boundaries (he clearly gets off on making people do things that they don't feel comfortable with or that shame them, this was also a thing with the person who abused me), expect to see lots of condescending explanations about BDSM and once again, accusations that people who criticize Gaiman's actions are "kink shaming."

These people have basically created a sexuality that normalizes abuse, manipulation, disrespect for boundaries, lack of consent, and humiliation. But when you point this out, you will be told that you are the problem, that the issue is your close mindedness and intolerance.

I know there will be defenders among his ardent fans, especially those who really embraced Gaiman and Palmer as a "polyamorous power couple." I'll be curious how far this extends though. Like how complete is the communal delusion that condones this behavior as just a kink or even as a superior and more evolved approach to sex and relationships than whatever the critics engage in? We'll see.

I’m actually extremely skeptical of claims of consent from the kink community, based on my own experiences when I was young and vulnerable. IME it gives a language of excused oppression to predators.