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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Didn’t read this whole thread, but the first woman in the article sounds like she consented  (who takes a bath in a garden?) and she’s telling the gross details for shock value snd sympathy.  Why would she continue to babysit if he was abusing her?  Her story makes zero GD sense.[/quote]

No family, no local support, no money + groomers. It makes absolute sense, if you're paying attention (but you didn't bother to read the thread, so...)

Power dynamics warp consent. Can you really consent if you're not free to decline? No. If you're going to get fired for not doing it? No. If you're going to be put out on the street, or are at least worried you could be? No. That's not consent.

This is why sleeping with your employee is a no-no from the start. It's not just "a bad look". The dynamic alone creates questions about consent, and whether or not it's even possible. Add to the employer/employee dynamic the fact that his targets were young/naive, broke, separated from social support (aside from his wife/enabler/trafficker?) and you have the setup for abuse.

Nobody tells humiliating stories to the world for sympathy or shock value. Most victims don't even tell their close family and friends. Why not? because clowns like you who can't even be bothered to read the thread and make a good faith attempt at understanding will say horrifically dismissive shite like this.

God forbid it ever happens to you or someone you love so you get a first-hand opportunity to adjust your perspective.[/quote]

I don’t have to read the thread - I read the article.  He did this from the jump.  This isn’t some long-held lucrative employment opportunity this 22 year old was relying on to put food in her kids’ mouths.  You’re being utterly ridiculous and denying that a grown ass woman has any agency whatsoever over the behavior she chooses to engage in with her employer of approximately two minutes.

This particular situation would never happen to me because I have some GD self respect and a working brain in my head.  Keep acting like women are freaking helpless idiots, that’s SO feminist of you  :roll: [/quote]

Are you a survivor of childhood abuse? Do you lack any stable support system and are you estranged from your family? Because that's the situation the nanny was in when this happened.

Some of you don't seem to understand that people like Gaiman (and Palmer, frankly) intentionally choose victims who have issues like this, specifically because it makes them less likely to resist, less likely to report, and less likely to be believed if they do report. That's the point. You are less likely to be in this situation in the first place because you are not a vulnerable person. You would not be in a compromised situation where you were desperate for work or housing. And people like Gaiman and Palmer would likely leave you alone in the first place because they would be able to tell you are not a good mark.

Some people are more vulnerable than others. Acknowledging that is not anti-feminist. Of course women can be powerful and aren't stupid. That doesn't mean we blame people for being taken advantage of by predators who [I]seek out[/I] vulnerable people in order to exploit them.[/quote]

What if Gaiman was the victim of childhood abuse?  Would that change the reality of his behavior as an adult?  Would it completely absolve him of any responsibility for his own choices?[/quote]

He's the perp. She's a victim. They are not the same.[/quote]

But she consented, so she’s not a victim. People are claiming that her emotional fragility due to past abuse is what makes her a victim - so would past abuse make him a victim as well?[/quote]

coercion is not consent. Control is not consent. Coercive control is not consent.[/quote]

Thank you for finding a clear way to explain this dynamic. [/quote]

Your kids must have you wrapped around their fingers.

“It was Larla’s idea!”
“Larlo talked me into it!”
“I didn’t even want to, my friends made me!”

:roll: [/quote]

Wow. F🦆off.

It’s like sexual assault doesn’t ever happen because you’re too smart and with it.  ANYONE can be attacked or coerced given the right manipulation and control. It’s amazing how utterly emotionally ignorant you are. [/quote]

The PP you are responding is probably an abuser who has coerced consent from his or her victims and is worried they’ll see through the con.

Gaiman was particularly popular in the kink community and the news is reverberating. Some of the abusers who are using the Gaiman techniques on their victims are panicking now. There are people in the community freaking out now. PP is probably one of them. [/quote]

I’m not personally into kink lifestyle but have loved ones that are. I’ve seen folks abused under the guise of play and safe words not being honored it addressed. That’s not in the community at large and more about predators lurking in that world that get off on harm rather than consensual exploration. Gaiman is clearly a sadist, rapist and not playing ethically. Much like the experience share earlier in this thread.

I’ve seen folks find healing and acknowledgement of needed styles of touch in safe consensually play with good communication and aftercare. (Not witnessed- discussed after). Plus it’s not all rough play. Not all of kink is pain or violence.

[/quote]

I'm the rape survivor who has posted previously. I would like to explain more clearly what I would like to see from the kink community in response to people like Gaiman claiming that they are not predators and that critics are merely "kink shaming."

Kinks that don't involve violence, coercion, or nonconsent (including simulated nonconsent). I don't really care what people do to get off if it's fully consenting and carries no risk of harm. So I'm really only talking about BDSM and associated kink here.

I don't think safe words or the assurance that a specific individual believes strongly in consent is enough. I think there should be more discussion of WHY people feel they benefit from engaging in BDSM and related behaviors, and I actually think discussing the why should be a normalized part of expressing these desires. I think consent should be centered and emphasized, beyond just safe words but via discussions of the importance of consent in any community that welcomes BDSM. And I think people who violate these standards should be vocally called our and, as important, that people who are harmed by those who claim to merely be engaging in acceptable kink should be cared for.

For instance, my friend who learned my rapist fantasized about rape and had engaged in simulated rape with strangers, should have responded to that by making sure he knew that is a dangerous desire and that someone could easily get hurt. She could have encouraged him to seek therapy to explore why lack of consent in a partner was appealing to him, and suggested that it may not actually be possible to explore that desire safely with others. Even the anonymous strangers with whom he engaged in "simulated rape" -- they may have consented but he knew nothing about them. Why was that something they wanted to explore? What drove that desire for them? I think he should have had to find that out before pursuing that.

I also think my sex positive, kink friendly friend should have warned me about this man's interest in rape. And I think once she learned he'd raped me, she should have held him accountable.

Having an interest in nonconsensual sex, or having sex in front of nonconsensual partners, or having sex that appears to be painful or uncomfortable for your partner, or inflicting actual violence on your partner before/during/after sex, is not the same as being into non-violent or non-coercive role play. It's more dangerous, and reflects possible (I would say likely) dysfunction. It should not be treated as fully normalized unless a very overt interest in consent is involved.

[b]People who get off on lack of consent should all be viewed as dangerous, because they are[/b].[/quote]

DP.  Not sure about getting off on, but though we no longer like to admit it, lack of consent is a very common, widespread fantasy.  A lot of the now-derided bodice-rippers of the 80s and 90s were rape fantasies.  Of course women do not and did not fantasize about actual tape, as you know, but lack of consent is a common fantasy.  The problem, and danger, is when people mistake fantasy for reality.[/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