Reply to Neil Gaiman article in Vulture

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Neil Gaiman article in Vulture"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]What Gaiman did is wrong even if the women consented.

The nanny was an employee. It is de facto unethical to have a sexual relationship with your employee, especially when the age difference is so wide, especially when the employee is caring for your minor child, especially if you allow your minor child to witness sex acts or risk him seeing them. Even if the nanny was into it and very happy with the situation (she wasn't but let's go with it for purposes of this argument), Gaiman's behavior was gross, unethical, and bad parenting.

One of the women was a tenant with three children whose husband had recently left her. Even assuming her consent, it is unethical to engage in a sexual relationship with someone with whom you have a business relationship, especially when that person is in the midst of a financial crisis brought on by a personal crisis which compromises her position in her business relationship. Gaiman also reportedly frequently entered her home without notice or consent, abusing his role as landlord to gain access to her at his whim. Even if she enthusiastically consented, this is gross and unethical.

Gaiman reportedly engaged in sexual activity that was demeaning, derogatory, or humiliating for his sex partners. It sounds like he had/has serious mental health issues that he takes out on sexual partners. That is sexually unethical, and reflects broader personality problems. It is right for him to be called for this when it is part of a pattern that has gone on for over a decade and his position of power and authority places many women in the path of his destructive behavior.

You don't have think it was all rape or nonconsensual to think he is wrong here. Remember Monica Lewinsky consented to her affair with Bill Clinton. And people said the same thing about her when it all came out back in the 90s -- she was the instigator, this was her fault. With the benefit of time and distance, most people can look at that situation and see that whatever Lewinsky did wrong, she was young and Clinton was many multitudes more powerful than she was. To blame her for what happens simply makes no sense, even if she thought at the time she was doing something she wanted to do. He started an affair with a much younger, very subordinate employee. He bears the vast majority of the blame. If it hadn't been Lewinsky, he just would have found someone else.

Well the same is true of Gaiman. He is the source of the problems here. Like yeah you can wish these women had said no, gotten out of there, quit that job, moved out of that house, whatever. I wish that too. I think they do too, actually. But at the end of the day what are we really talking about here? Some young woman who made some dumb choices in her early 20s that resulted in a horrible experience for her? Or a wealthy, powerful man who has a long and consistent history of engaging in unethical, grotesque sexual behavior, including on occasion in front of his son? Which thing should we focus on?

I don't get why some of you are so hung up on these women. They are damaged people who made mistakes, they'd be the first to admit it. The story is Gaiman. Do you think their mistakes exonerate him? I don't.[/quote]

Very, very well said. Thank you PP for so clearly laying out the horrifying ethical violations here. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics