Neil Gaiman article in Vulture

[Anonymous]

Same pattern.

[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.

His order readership is watching his shows and rereading his books for nostalgia but now that is tainted. And his young readership, they are very black and white. They are turned off by this.

His readership is gone. You can see it already, if you look.

[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.

His order readership is watching his shows and rereading his books for nostalgia but now that is tainted. And his young readership, they are very black and white. They are turned off by this.

His readership is gone. You can see it already, if you look.

It’s not gone. There are just a bunch of loyal readers performatively saying they are done (for now) and “holding space” for “conflicting feelings.”

They’ll embrace his redemption tour in a few years, once the accuser have been sufficiently trashed by whatever Baldoni-style PR agency Gaiman hires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was so horrifying to read. But not a surprise to me at all that so many of these "progressive", "feminist", "kink friendly" men turn out to be utterly depraved predators. At this point it should just be a massive red flag

I disagree. One of the best boyfriends I had was a sex positive kink friendly shibari master. Know what he valued? Consent. Safe sex.

Know what most 40 -50 YO men I’ve met who aren’t into kink or sex positive? Lying, condom shaming. STD carelessness or overt lying.


IMO the kink community is one of the safest places for women to enjoy their sexuality- “traditional” men seem to be the most rapey. YMMV.

My friend is in the community. She told me a story that showed me at least one group was into consent. One dude had not gotten the message, but the others got him in line.

It's just like anything else. Some will be rapists, and some won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone involved is gross. These women all agreed to consensual sex with this man until at some point it went bad. What the heck did they expect, having sex with a married man while working as his babysitter? I’m not blaming them for instances of sexual assault but let’s not pretend these are upstanding young women. This man is disgusting. If he, as my boss invited me to take a bath in his garden, that would be a hard no. Where is common sense?

(I have only read the Variety article and excerpts of the Vulture on Reddit and elsewhere as it's paywalled on my phone)

The power dynamics are really significant here. Most of these women were very young. Several were employees of Gaiman or his wife. One was a neighbor who'd just divorced. Several agreed to NDAs for shockingly low sums, indicating that even when they knew what had happened was wrong, they struggled to really believe it. He clearly preyed on women who were especially vulnerable or compromised. So that's where the "common sense" was. Many of these women were likely abused or neglected as children or in prior relationships. It's very common. And then abusers like Gaiman are good at spotting the qualities of someone with that background -- eager to please, low self esteem but responds very well to attention and flattery, willing to override their internal resistance to things to please him (until, for most of them, there came a line where their internal resistance kicked in and they said no -- I am betting Gaiman got off and trying to find where that line was and then trying to push past it).

Also Gaiman and Amanda Palmer were very vocal advocates of polyamory. I think they used this essentially as cover for Gaiman to be a straight up predator. They could draw people in under the guise of "it's okay, it's an open relationship, we're affectionate people, love is love, the human body is beautiful in all its forms so nudity isn't shameful" and so on -- it normalizes a whole range of behaviors that would not be considered okay in a more traditional community where most people are monogamous and you don't take baths at your boss's house or discuss sex with your employer. They sold this "alternative lifestyle" as better than other kinds of relationships and people really idolized them for having figured out polyamory and viewed them as more evolved or something.

Turns out they are just extremely terrible people and there were a million signs along the way that people ignored because they seemed so "cool." Never been a better example of why "coolness" is absolutely worthless. Cool is deeply deceptive.

I’m a Gen X woman who has been really concerned by the normalization of “alternative” sex and “kink” that seems like just a way to degrade women by any other name. I’m not saying to prohibit consensual conduct — but acting like BDSM and stuff like c@ming in a woman’s face etc is totally normal healthy sexual behavior is not right. Even on forums like this you see a lot of people acting like you’re a prude if you think this stuff is distasteful. I think there’s a lot of young women that feel like they don’t want to be labeled a prude so they go along with stuff because it’s cool or supposed to be fun, then realize along the way that it’s not actually fun and just makes them feel crappy. For instance, the vast majority of women do not really enjoy an&l — that’s not where our best erogenous zones are. Yet there’s now tremendous pressure on women to include this as a normal part of sex lives. I think all of this pressure makes it hard for young women to draw appropriate boundaries and realize “oh, wait, a married middle aged guy who wants to dominate me and degrade me is not actually sexy, and I’m not a prude if I think that’s disgusting.”

hard agree- all these young people have basically been groomed to be easy prey. like why would any sensible girl stay in a house, alone, with the middle aged dad while waiting for the kid to come home from a playdate? that would be "ewwww creep!!!" bells for every gen x girl i knew back then. we all wouldve been pissed off and left and been like call me when your kid is here, im not here to keep you company. this alternative crap and let it all be available ethos is just grooming, or dont knock it til you try it. nope, people can and should only do sexual stuff that turns THEM on, people have zero obligation to try something just in case they might llike it- that is abusive and coercive.

[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:

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.

I feel extremely sorry for anyone who needs to degrade or be degraded in order to have a satisfying sex life. I think this only happens when something went very wrong in their upbringing. I wish those people could get effective therapy to allow them to have more self respect or respect for others. I know my viewpoint is viewed as kink shaming. I think any kink that involves degradation is shameful and it’s okay to say that and to encourage those people to get help that will help them move past that limitation.

[Anonymous]

It’s amazing that people could read this exchange and not immediately have red flags go up. The self-promotion is off the charts, and yet he was lauded for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s a completely different unrelated situation minus they are both human beings.

They are both differently vile.

[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.

You forget the enormous population of his former fandom who have been sexually abused and have tender souls. It’s what drew us in in the first place. He is over. You cannot heal this wound.

[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:

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.

His order readership is watching his shows and rereading his books for nostalgia but now that is tainted. And his young readership, they are very black and white. They are turned off by this.

His readership is gone. You can see it already, if you look.

It’s not gone. There are just a bunch of loyal readers performatively saying they are done (for now) and “holding space” for “conflicting feelings.”

They’ll embrace his redemption tour in a few years, once the accuser have been sufficiently trashed by whatever Baldoni-style PR agency Gaiman hires.

You’re thinking like a normie.

[Anonymous]

His Scientology background is not an excuse but it is interesting to consider that he was an auditor and would have learned techniques of coercion and manipulation from them. Even if he looks back.on his childhood as abusive (as it sounds like he does), he would have learned about this from them. I think it's a very interesting connection. He's a world class manipulator.

I think the woman getting into the bathtub was a bad move on her part but I think it was a test. If she did, he would take advantage knowing that either she's extremely naive or that she could be open to him. I think she was extremely naive plus isolated with no transportation out of there. I think then his manipulation was to then create a false sense of a relationship and Palmer helped. All the texts between them support that there was some kind of relationship and therefore can "prove" that it was at some point consensual though I don't think it really was.

I think he's canceled but the example of Armie Hammer is a good one. He's in the midst of rehabilitating himself right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His Scientology background is not an excuse but it is interesting to consider that he was an auditor and would have learned techniques of coercion and manipulation from them. Even if he looks back.on his childhood as abusive (as it sounds like he does), he would have learned about this from them. I think it's a very interesting connection. He's a world class manipulator.

I think the woman getting into the bathtub was a bad move on her part but I think it was a test. If she did, he would take advantage knowing that either she's extremely naive or that she could be open to him. I think she was extremely naive plus isolated with no transportation out of there. I think then his manipulation was to then create a false sense of a relationship and Palmer helped. All the texts between them support that there was some kind of relationship and therefore can "prove" that it was at some point consensual though I don't think it really was.

I think he's canceled but the example of Armie Hammer is a good one. He's in the midst of rehabilitating himself right now.

I agree it was a test but I disagree with you that she did not understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His Scientology background is not an excuse but it is interesting to consider that he was an auditor and would have learned techniques of coercion and manipulation from them. Even if he looks back.on his childhood as abusive (as it sounds like he does), he would have learned about this from them. I think it's a very interesting connection. He's a world class manipulator.

I think the woman getting into the bathtub was a bad move on her part but I think it was a test. If she did, he would take advantage knowing that either she's extremely naive or that she could be open to him. I think she was extremely naive plus isolated with no transportation out of there. I think then his manipulation was to then create a false sense of a relationship and Palmer helped. All the texts between them support that there was some kind of relationship and therefore can "prove" that it was at some point consensual though I don't think it really was.

I think he's canceled but the example of Armie Hammer is a good one. He's in the midst of rehabilitating himself right now.

I agree it was a test but I disagree with you that she did not understand it.

I’m pretty sure she didn’t expect a finger jammed up her butt when she told him she was a lesbian.

[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:

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.

His order readership is watching his shows and rereading his books for nostalgia but now that is tainted. And his young readership, they are very black and white. They are turned off by this.

His readership is gone. You can see it already, if you look.

It’s not gone. There are just a bunch of loyal readers performatively saying they are done (for now) and “holding space” for “conflicting feelings.”

They’ll embrace his redemption tour in a few years, once the accuser have been sufficiently trashed by whatever Baldoni-style PR agency Gaiman hires.

You’re thinking like a normie.

Gaiman’s readership consists of normies, albeit ones who have convinced themselves they are not.

He will be embraced widely by his fans 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.

You forget the enormous population of his former fandom who have been sexually abused and have tender souls. It’s what drew us in in the first place. He is over. You cannot heal this wound.

Your first sentence, yeesh, my sister. I wish more victims of SA or other forms of abuse would seek real help of some kind and not be so gotdamned stupid.

Gaiman and Palmer absolutely victimized the nanny and set her up; they exploited and further impoverished her. But it’s repugnant and infuriating to me personally to read her correspondence and comments like yours, because she and you and your ilk absolutely luxuriate in the sense that your damage makes you special, more intuitive and more in sync with both the beauty and horror of life. But - that’s just stupid, and in willingly putting the wool over your own eyes and surrendering in advance your power to claim cred as the most M of BDSM-ers, you enable the abuse and enable the abuse of others as blinkered and lost. A mess.

I can’t quite understand reading anything either Gaiman or Palmer wrote and not seeing that they’re poseurs. The tweets are ick. There was reason for skepticism. Woof.