Neil Gaiman article in Vulture

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

I'm an alumni of Bard College, where Neil Gaiman was later a visiting professor. Has Bard said anything yet? Surely he's not still on the roster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: let’s not pretend these are upstanding young women.

Who is "pretending" that they are? Why is this relevant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+100. These women are fully complicit in their own treatment. They agreed to participate.

I don’t think the evidence is there that they fully agreed to participate in everything that happened.

There's no "evidence" but circumstantial evidence shows it. Maybe they were overborne by his charisma - that means that it was consensual.

It sounds like he wouldn't let up and then they gave in because they felt he wasn't giving them a choice. Did you read about the woman who told him no even as he penetrated her while she had a UTI? How about the one he raped anally until she bled, even as she was saying no?

We weren't there. But at some point, when person after person tells a similar story about what happens when you are alone with a person, you might start thinking that the person is doing the thing they are accused of.

It does sound like, with many of these women, there were times thy did consent. Times they solicited his attention. And other times he r*ped them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get serious Ghislaine Maxwell vibes from Amanda Palmer. Amanda said she and Neil weren’t attracted to each other, so why were they together? For Amanda, it was access to his fame and money. For Neil, it was access to vulnerable young women who were impressed by Amanda’s coolness.

Amanda sent a fan girl-who she called fragile- to Neil’s house to “babysit” for hours when Amanda had sent the child out on a playdate. She knew what Neil would do. The fact that she told him to leave that woman alone shows she knew he’d try something. And yes, that 22 year old woman was clearly mentally unstable. That’s why they picked her. A young woman with a supportive family and healthy self-esteem would be harder to abuse.

Yes not just the nanny who she appears to have served up to him in a backhanded way (telling him he "couldn't have her" and then literally driving her to his house even though their child wan't even there and she knew it -- she knew making the nanny forbidden would make him go after her) but also the other woman who Amanda first slept with and then introduced to Neil explicitly so he could sleep with her too. And then Gaiman references this isn the relationship with the nanny, mentioning how it would be more fun if it was like back when they would take turns with a woman.

Also we don't hear much about what Amanda's sex life with Gaiman was like but there is no way she was not aware that he liked engaging in sex or sexual activity with other people in the room, including as it becomes clear, their son. I really do not understand how, given what she must have known about him, she then sends him the nanny knowing he's going to cross the line with her *in front of their son.* It's sick. I feel so terrible for this child who will not only have to live through all this but will grow up and then be able to read all about it online.

[Anonymous]

Gaiman hired a crisis management firm - same one Prince Andrew retained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gaiman hired a crisis management firm - same one Prince Andrew retained.

Meant to share link: https://www.npr.org/2025/01/14/nx-s1-5259516/neil-gaiman-response-sexual-misconduct-allegations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+100. These women are fully complicit in their own treatment. They agreed to participate.

I don’t think the evidence is there that they fully agreed to participate in everything that happened.

There's no "evidence" but circumstantial evidence shows it. Maybe they were overborne by his charisma - that means that it was consensual.

Some of these women were 18 or 22 at the time. One was his child's nanny. Another was a tenant on his property whose husband had recently left her and she was worried she and her children would be evicted if she didn't comply.

Also so many of these incidents took place in remote homes in the middle of nowhere. That really struck me, especially because the article talks about how Gaiman preferred being in more remote places. It's always some remote house on farm upstate or an island off the coast of New Zealand. He owns a house on the Isle of Skye. All of the worst stuff in these stories take place in locations where it would be hard for the women to flee. In some cases they didn't have cars and were driven to his location or he was their ride. That plus the age difference and the employment relationship with the nanny or the landlord-tenant relationship with the neighbor -- it's all very coercive. He clearly seems to have selected women who he thought would be more compliant because they have few other choices.

It's like how serial killers often target prostitutes because they tend to be easier marks plus everyone is happy to blame a prostitute for her own murderer. And yes that comparison is horrifying and I mean it to be. I don't think Gaiman's psychology is a whole lot different than a serial killer except he stopped short of murder -- perhaps too much to lose with his fame and fortune.

[Anonymous]

I feel bad for the professionals working on projects based on his work right now who are going to lose their jobs. Not the big name actors, who I'm sure will be fine, but like the grips and caterers and assistants who will have to scramble for work because it turns out the project they were working on is based on art created by a disgusting pervert. What a crap reason to lose your job.

[Anonymous]

I'm curious about Amanda Palmer's response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+100. These women are fully complicit in their own treatment. They agreed to participate.

I don’t think the evidence is there that they fully agreed to participate in everything that happened.

There's no "evidence" but circumstantial evidence shows it. Maybe they were overborne by his charisma - that means that it was consensual.

Some of these women were 18 or 22 at the time. One was his child's nanny. Another was a tenant on his property whose husband had recently left her and she was worried she and her children would be evicted if she didn't comply.

Also so many of these incidents took place in remote homes in the middle of nowhere. That really struck me, especially because the article talks about how Gaiman preferred being in more remote places. It's always some remote house on farm upstate or an island off the coast of New Zealand. He owns a house on the Isle of Skye. All of the worst stuff in these stories take place in locations where it would be hard for the women to flee. In some cases they didn't have cars and were driven to his location or he was their ride. That plus the age difference and the employment relationship with the nanny or the landlord-tenant relationship with the neighbor -- it's all very coercive. He clearly seems to have selected women who he thought would be more compliant because they have few other choices.

It's like how serial killers often target prostitutes because they tend to be easier marks plus everyone is happy to blame a prostitute for her own murderer. And yes that comparison is horrifying and I mean it to be. I don't think Gaiman's psychology is a whole lot different than a serial killer except he stopped short of murder -- perhaps too much to lose with his fame and fortune.

+1
Two of the women were essentially homeless, and they knew that theyre housing situation was basically dependent on going along with Neil's "advances". One of the homeless women had children, so she was obviously worried about the kids being out on the street. There is something seriously, seriously depraved about a man who preys on HOMELESS WOMEN and forces them into sexual acts despite them repeatedly telling him no. It's absolutely disgusting and anyone trying to defend him on this needs to seriously question themselves.

[Anonymous]

oops ^*their housing

[Anonymous]

Man I love his books but yuck.

[Anonymous]

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.”

[Anonymous]

I have noticed that the people defending this as “consensual” seem to also want to defend the child’s involvement, which is extremely disturbing. Surely at a minimum you can agree that what happened to the child is entirely wrong.