Neil Gaiman article in Vulture

[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.

I’m the PP who noted that some of this was consensual based on what I had read which clearly wasn’t everything. You raise a really good point regarding the isolation tactic and how perhaps they complied based on a feeling of helplessness. I can also see how he may have kept pushing boundaries to condition them to eventual abuse. This makes absolute sense. He is of course, a horrible creep. I’ve not read his books and don’t have any knowledge of his work. Thank you for sharing your perspective!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I had a friend who left an abusive marriage. They lived in rural isolation. She commented one time that people live like that so they can do terrible things without others' notice. I agree that his isolation was helpful to him and probably deliberate.

In the past, artists got a pass when their bad behavior towards women was revealed. People argued that you can separate the art from the artist. I am in the arts and have heard this idea forever. I think though that this was just a way for society to ignore the damage it caused women. As artists have historically mostly men and academics who defend them mostly men, it was accepted or ignored. Or more recently, blamed on "cancel culture." It's a systemic problem. I feel more and more like I cannot separate the art from the artist. Recently the Alice Munro family revelations proved her to be a monster. I felt so disgusted by this and I don't want to read her ever again.

To be really successful in the arts you have be ruthless. Gaiman described himself as otherwordly-confident when starting out. I'm not surprised. He also came from a very horrible background. I think a lot of successful artists do. Having nothing to lose and few family ties means you don't care what happens on the way. And then success means you have a lot of opportunity to exploit your faithful followers. Even middling writers do this in their college departments. Or they are people like Blake Bailey.

I think women having voices, being listened to, having women journalists like the one from Vulture to write the story, are upending business-as-usual, old interpretations and excuses for this behavior and that's a positive change.

There have been other women artists, such as Marion Zimmer Bradley, an important feminist, and others, that have been revealed to be abusive or condoning abuse. You are characterizing artists being monsters as only or mostly men but I'm not sure that's the case at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup, I'm imperfect but it was never non-consensual, I recognize the need for growth etc. Formulaic response that sounds like it was written by a PR agency.

It is gross that he says “I'm far from a perfect person, but I have never engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with anyone. Ever.” when one of the most serious allegations involves the presence of his child, who absolutely could not consent.

This.
He thinks it's acceptable to have sex in front of his son.
He picks vulnerable women, those he has financial power over.

Repulsive behavior.

He says has never engaged in non-consensual activity but these stories show otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I had a friend who left an abusive marriage. They lived in rural isolation. She commented one time that people live like that so they can do terrible things without others' notice. I agree that his isolation was helpful to him and probably deliberate.

In the past, artists got a pass when their bad behavior towards women was revealed. People argued that you can separate the art from the artist. I am in the arts and have heard this idea forever. I think though that this was just a way for society to ignore the damage it caused women. As artists have historically mostly men and academics who defend them mostly men, it was accepted or ignored. Or more recently, blamed on "cancel culture." It's a systemic problem. I feel more and more like I cannot separate the art from the artist. Recently the Alice Munro family revelations proved her to be a monster. I felt so disgusted by this and I don't want to read her ever again.

To be really successful in the arts you have be ruthless. Gaiman described himself as otherwordly-confident when starting out. I'm not surprised. He also came from a very horrible background. I think a lot of successful artists do. Having nothing to lose and few family ties means you don't care what happens on the way. And then success means you have a lot of opportunity to exploit your faithful followers. Even middling writers do this in their college departments. Or they are people like Blake Bailey.

I think women having voices, being listened to, having women journalists like the one from Vulture to write the story, are upending business-as-usual, old interpretations and excuses for this behavior and that's a positive change.

There have been other women artists, such as Marion Zimmer Bradley, an important feminist, and others, that have been revealed to be abusive or condoning abuse. You are characterizing artists being monsters as only or mostly men but I'm not sure that's the case at all.

PP here. I think women can be abusive but the only abusive writers I have heard of (involving sex) are Marion Zimmerman Bradley and Alice Munro. Who are some others? I’m genuinely curious. There have been so many examples of men who were and it was generally excused. Someone like Norman Mailer championed a macho author persona; I’ve never heard that he abused anyone but he was married like six times and promoted male supremacy and influenced a lot of people. I’m just saying behavior like Gaiman’s was covered up, excused or celebrated in the past by other men because there was a culture that protected them, and fewer women in any kind of critical or cultural position to expose them and be taken seriously.

[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.”

I feel like Gen X women have been saying this for 20 years … I do think Millenial and Gen Z women were not acculturated in the same way to it being inevitably “cool” but OTOH the accessibility of hard core prn has only increased.

[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?

(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.”

I feel like Gen X women have been saying this for 20 years … I do think Millenial and Gen Z women were not acculturated in the same way to it being inevitably “cool” but OTOH the accessibility of hard core prn has only increased.

Yes there's a huge movement of anti-porn with younger millennials and Gen Zs, along with 4B. In a way, the revealing of male sexual degeneracy that happened during the Gen X/early millennial heyday has actually been a boon for feminism. Of course there is still a subset of Gen Z that subscribes to the Lana Del Rey, "he hit me and it felt like a kiss", "hit me daddy" type kink behavior but it's increasingly considered outdated and cringy edgelord stuff. Young women are really disgusted by a lot of the pro-kink stuff and it's one of the reasons rates of virginity and the "male loneliness crisis" are skyrocketing.

Men are reaping what they've sown.

[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?

(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.”

I feel like Gen X women have been saying this for 20 years … I do think Millenial and Gen Z women were not acculturated in the same way to it being inevitably “cool” but OTOH the accessibility of hard core prn has only increased.

Yes there's a huge movement of anti-porn with younger millennials and Gen Zs, along with 4B. In a way, the revealing of male sexual degeneracy that happened during the Gen X/early millennial heyday has actually been a boon for feminism. Of course there is still a subset of Gen Z that subscribes to the Lana Del Rey, "he hit me and it felt like a kiss", "hit me daddy" type kink behavior but it's increasingly considered outdated and cringy edgelord stuff. Young women are really disgusted by a lot of the pro-kink stuff and it's one of the reasons rates of virginity and the "male loneliness crisis" are skyrocketing.

Men are reaping what they've sown.

Gen Z kids are not having sex. They also aren't having conversations or talking to each other or having any light or deep social interaction.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

(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.”

I feel like Gen X women have been saying this for 20 years … I do think Millenial and Gen Z women were not acculturated in the same way to it being inevitably “cool” but OTOH the accessibility of hard core prn has only increased.

Yes there's a huge movement of anti-porn with younger millennials and Gen Zs, along with 4B. In a way, the revealing of male sexual degeneracy that happened during the Gen X/early millennial heyday has actually been a boon for feminism. Of course there is still a subset of Gen Z that subscribes to the Lana Del Rey, "he hit me and it felt like a kiss", "hit me daddy" type kink behavior but it's increasingly considered outdated and cringy edgelord stuff. Young women are really disgusted by a lot of the pro-kink stuff and it's one of the reasons rates of virginity and the "male loneliness crisis" are skyrocketing.

Men are reaping what they've sown.

Gen Z kids are not having sex. They also aren't having conversations or talking to each other or having any light or deep social interaction.

Yeah they seem to have different issues - or mirrored issues - to the ones we (Gen X) grew up accepting as normal. Or trying to stop from being accepted as normal.

There has to be some middle ground between anything goes and nothing goes.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. I don't really understand this. We've never had a nanny but we've had house cleaners and babysitters, and I have worked before as a babysitter. Sex has never been a part of any of it. This woman made a decision to say yes. There's a lot of pretending that the nanny was young and somehow had sex with her boss by accident or unavoidably. Such a strange take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

(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.”

I feel like Gen X women have been saying this for 20 years … I do think Millenial and Gen Z women were not acculturated in the same way to it being inevitably “cool” but OTOH the accessibility of hard core prn has only increased.

Yes there's a huge movement of anti-porn with younger millennials and Gen Zs, along with 4B. In a way, the revealing of male sexual degeneracy that happened during the Gen X/early millennial heyday has actually been a boon for feminism. Of course there is still a subset of Gen Z that subscribes to the Lana Del Rey, "he hit me and it felt like a kiss", "hit me daddy" type kink behavior but it's increasingly considered outdated and cringy edgelord stuff. Young women are really disgusted by a lot of the pro-kink stuff and it's one of the reasons rates of virginity and the "male loneliness crisis" are skyrocketing.

Men are reaping what they've sown.

Gen Z kids are not having sex. They also aren't having conversations or talking to each other or having any light or deep social interaction.

Yeah they seem to have different issues - or mirrored issues - to the ones we (Gen X) grew up accepting as normal. Or trying to stop from being accepted as normal.

There has to be some middle ground between anything goes and nothing goes.

Killing hook-up culture is a good thing. But killing off social and romantic interaction entirely is quite different, and not a good thing. Not ours to solve, but ours to see our kids struggle with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

(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.”

I feel like Gen X women have been saying this for 20 years … I do think Millenial and Gen Z women were not acculturated in the same way to it being inevitably “cool” but OTOH the accessibility of hard core prn has only increased.

Yes there's a huge movement of anti-porn with younger millennials and Gen Zs, along with 4B. In a way, the revealing of male sexual degeneracy that happened during the Gen X/early millennial heyday has actually been a boon for feminism. Of course there is still a subset of Gen Z that subscribes to the Lana Del Rey, "he hit me and it felt like a kiss", "hit me daddy" type kink behavior but it's increasingly considered outdated and cringy edgelord stuff. Young women are really disgusted by a lot of the pro-kink stuff and it's one of the reasons rates of virginity and the "male loneliness crisis" are skyrocketing.

Men are reaping what they've sown.

Gen Z kids are not having sex. They also aren't having conversations or talking to each other or having any light or deep social interaction.

Yeah they seem to have different issues - or mirrored issues - to the ones we (Gen X) grew up accepting as normal. Or trying to stop from being accepted as normal.

There has to be some middle ground between anything goes and nothing goes.

Killing hook-up culture is a good thing. But killing off social and romantic interaction entirely is quite different, and not a good thing. Not ours to solve, but ours to see our kids struggle with.

I guess this is for another thread - but are your kids struggling with it? Like do they perceive this as a problem? I'm in my 50s but don't have kids, so I mostly know about this stuff from talking to people not seeing it firsthand.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. I don't really understand this. We've never had a nanny but we've had house cleaners and babysitters, and I have worked before as a babysitter. Sex has never been a part of any of it. This woman made a decision to say yes. There's a lot of pretending that the nanny was young and somehow had sex with her boss by accident or unavoidably. Such a strange take.

Do you not understand how power dynamics work? There is a reason that pressuring employees to have sex is immoral. The nanny was otherwise unemployed and homeless. She was estranged from her family. They hadn’t been paying her, so she had no money. That’s very different from most babysitting situations.

Also, from my reading of the story, there were situations where he did physically force women, painfully.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. I don't really understand this. We've never had a nanny but we've had house cleaners and babysitters, and I have worked before as a babysitter. Sex has never been a part of any of it. This woman made a decision to say yes. There's a lot of pretending that the nanny was young and somehow had sex with her boss by accident or unavoidably. Such a strange take.

You should probably read the article. Amanda was the lure. She was essentially trafficking these women to Neil.

[Anonymous]

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.