Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's up with the texts she sent where she reassured him it was not only consensual, but "wonderful?" Everyone involved here is horrible. The woman wants money and he and his wife are scum.

fawning is a trauma response

Fawning in person. Not later by text or email.

Not accurate -- fawning can absolutely include behavior later by text or email if it is done to try and keep you safe or avoid a conflict you think could endanger you.

This woman had become dependent on Palmer by this point, plus she had a relationship with the child. Combined with her own childhood trauma and total lack of a support system, I find it believable that she was scared of being fired or thrown out (and had no idea what she would do or where she would go) and therefore acted to protect the relationships.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/emotional-sobriety/202303/what-is-the-fawning-trauma-response

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:

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.

Totally agree and I wish that when situations like this came to light, it actually prompted introspection from the supposedly very open minded and progressive people who populate BDSM and polyamorous communities. But it never does. They just rely on the same argument you find in toxic workplaces where harassment and assault happens -- "oh those were just a few bad apples, but we got rid of them."

The truth is that people with major mental health issues sometimes find ways to rationalize their violent, controlling, abusive, or self-inflicting instincts as kink. And it works!

I was raped by a man in my 20s. A few months later, I revealed what had happened to a friend who was also friends with the man who raped me. She was not surprised, and told me that my rapist had told her and her husband that he fantasized about raping women, and had even had anonymous encounters with women he'd met online to "re-enact" rape fantasies. I also later found out that he had been diagnosed as bipolar, was prescribed lithium but refused to take it most of the time because he didn't like how it blunted his mania.

The kicker is that even after all this came out, this friend remained friends with my rapist. I dropped out of that social circle after all this, saw a therapist regarding PTSD, moved on. Years later I reconnected with the friend and thought we could put it behind us. And then she casually mentioned my rapist, who apparently she and her husband still see regularly, something about his work. It was like it never happened.

You can't make this stuff up. Our society just tolerates rapists. It goes so deep.

I fully expect to see Gaiman getting book deals and having his work optioned for more film and TV shows in the future. People will act horrified for a while and then it will be like it never happened. Except for the women whose lives he totally upended, who will deal with it for the rest of their lives.

I'm sorry about your trauma, but projecting it onto an entire community is hot horseshit. Plenty of us know this isn't kink, it's abuse. It's not "kinkshaming" to point out abuse and call it what it is. It's kinkshaming to make blanket assumptions like yours based in your own traumatized perspective. If it's not for you, that's fine, and your position should be respected. That doesn't make every person who has a kink you don't share someone with mental health issues rationalizing their damage as kink.

You're actually rationalizing your damage as health right now. I hope you seek and receive the help you deserve. What happened to you shouldn't have happened to you.

What happened to me would have been less likely to happen if the friend learned of this guy's "rape fantasies" had viewed that as a massive red flag and indication he might harm someone, as opposed to viewing it as an acceptable kink and believe that it is even possible for someone to act out rape fantasies without running into serious consent issues. Or to ask herself "hey can a desire to have force a woman to have nonconsensual sex even BE an acceptable kink? like shouldn't that ALWAYS be viewed negatively?"

Sorry that my personal experience doesn't back up your very strong belief that BDSM should be normalized and acceptable, or that there is no real danger to anyone if we condone these "kinks." But I am entitled to my opinion and my opinion is that BDSM normalizes nonconsensual sex and sexual violence and should be treated as a mental health problem and not just an interesting expression of sexual desire.

I don't care what you think I'm "projecting" or "rationalizing." My point was that when stuff like this happens, I've never once seen the "kink community" do some introspection on it. It's always "one bad apple." And the oh, oops, we still like that person anyway and the people he harmed are SOL.

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:

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.

Totally agree and I wish that when situations like this came to light, it actually prompted introspection from the supposedly very open minded and progressive people who populate BDSM and polyamorous communities. But it never does. They just rely on the same argument you find in toxic workplaces where harassment and assault happens -- "oh those were just a few bad apples, but we got rid of them."

The truth is that people with major mental health issues sometimes find ways to rationalize their violent, controlling, abusive, or self-inflicting instincts as kink. And it works!

I was raped by a man in my 20s. A few months later, I revealed what had happened to a friend who was also friends with the man who raped me. She was not surprised, and told me that my rapist had told her and her husband that he fantasized about raping women, and had even had anonymous encounters with women he'd met online to "re-enact" rape fantasies. I also later found out that he had been diagnosed as bipolar, was prescribed lithium but refused to take it most of the time because he didn't like how it blunted his mania.

The kicker is that even after all this came out, this friend remained friends with my rapist. I dropped out of that social circle after all this, saw a therapist regarding PTSD, moved on. Years later I reconnected with the friend and thought we could put it behind us. And then she casually mentioned my rapist, who apparently she and her husband still see regularly, something about his work. It was like it never happened.

You can't make this stuff up. Our society just tolerates rapists. It goes so deep.

I fully expect to see Gaiman getting book deals and having his work optioned for more film and TV shows in the future. People will act horrified for a while and then it will be like it never happened. Except for the women whose lives he totally upended, who will deal with it for the rest of their lives.

I'm sorry about your trauma, but projecting it onto an entire community is hot horseshit. Plenty of us know this isn't kink, it's abuse. It's not "kinkshaming" to point out abuse and call it what it is. It's kinkshaming to make blanket assumptions like yours based in your own traumatized perspective. If it's not for you, that's fine, and your position should be respected. That doesn't make every person who has a kink you don't share someone with mental health issues rationalizing their damage as kink.

You're actually rationalizing your damage as health right now. I hope you seek and receive the help you deserve. What happened to you shouldn't have happened to you.

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.

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.

Speaking of people who should seek real help of some kind...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's up with the texts she sent where she reassured him it was not only consensual, but "wonderful?" Everyone involved here is horrible. The woman wants money and he and his wife are scum.

fawning is a trauma response

Fawning in person. Not later by text or email.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think it all sounds mostly-consensual. But also awful, despicable, and involving his child is over the line.

Sure I mean he’s gross, but “accusations” of being a “predator” seem to be what’s really over the line. Honestly I’m sick of grown women being infantilized like this. If your gross employer asks you to take a bath with him it’s time to get the hell out of there.

(Plus he sucks as a writer. Never understood his appeal.)

Women who are being harassed at work are not infants. That's ridiculous. There's a power dynamic between employer and employee.

I was in my 30s as a working highly educated professional woman. A man I was working on a contract with met me for coffee in public to work. He then started insisting I go to his house and wait for him to take a shower. I said no. Obviously I didn't get any more work with him.

Now I realize how wrong it was that I dealt with so much, put up with so much, walked away unscathed numerous times. Sometimes friends of mine who were lawyers told me to quit a job before it got to the point I would have a case, because they cared about me.

I’m sorry you don’t understand what “infantilization” means. No shit to the rest of your post; but the solution to workplace harassment isn’t to say “yes” to a bath together, “no” to fingers in your butt, show up to work for the next day, and years later, call a journalist (instead of calling the police when whatever assault you’re claiming occurred actually happened).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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:

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.

Totally agree and I wish that when situations like this came to light, it actually prompted introspection from the supposedly very open minded and progressive people who populate BDSM and polyamorous communities. But it never does. They just rely on the same argument you find in toxic workplaces where harassment and assault happens -- "oh those were just a few bad apples, but we got rid of them."

The truth is that people with major mental health issues sometimes find ways to rationalize their violent, controlling, abusive, or self-inflicting instincts as kink. And it works!

I was raped by a man in my 20s. A few months later, I revealed what had happened to a friend who was also friends with the man who raped me. She was not surprised, and told me that my rapist had told her and her husband that he fantasized about raping women, and had even had anonymous encounters with women he'd met online to "re-enact" rape fantasies. I also later found out that he had been diagnosed as bipolar, was prescribed lithium but refused to take it most of the time because he didn't like how it blunted his mania.

The kicker is that even after all this came out, this friend remained friends with my rapist. I dropped out of that social circle after all this, saw a therapist regarding PTSD, moved on. Years later I reconnected with the friend and thought we could put it behind us. And then she casually mentioned my rapist, who apparently she and her husband still see regularly, something about his work. It was like it never happened.

You can't make this stuff up. Our society just tolerates rapists. It goes so deep.

I fully expect to see Gaiman getting book deals and having his work optioned for more film and TV shows in the future. People will act horrified for a while and then it will be like it never happened. Except for the women whose lives he totally upended, who will deal with it for the rest of their lives.

I'm sorry about your trauma, but projecting it onto an entire community is hot horseshit. Plenty of us know this isn't kink, it's abuse. It's not "kinkshaming" to point out abuse and call it what it is. It's kinkshaming to make blanket assumptions like yours based in your own traumatized perspective. If it's not for you, that's fine, and your position should be respected. That doesn't make every person who has a kink you don't share someone with mental health issues rationalizing their damage as kink.

You're actually rationalizing your damage as health right now. I hope you seek and receive the help you deserve. What happened to you shouldn't have happened to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's up with the texts she sent where she reassured him it was not only consensual, but "wonderful?" Everyone involved here is horrible. The woman wants money and he and his wife are scum.

fawning is a trauma response

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's up with the texts she sent where she reassured him it was not only consensual, but "wonderful?" Everyone involved here is horrible. The woman wants money and he and his wife are scum.

fawning is a trauma response

Anonymous wrote:What's up with the texts she sent where she reassured him it was not only consensual, but "wonderful?" Everyone involved here is horrible. The woman wants money and he and his wife are scum.

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:

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.

Totally agree and I wish that when situations like this came to light, it actually prompted introspection from the supposedly very open minded and progressive people who populate BDSM and polyamorous communities. But it never does. They just rely on the same argument you find in toxic workplaces where harassment and assault happens -- "oh those were just a few bad apples, but we got rid of them."

The truth is that people with major mental health issues sometimes find ways to rationalize their violent, controlling, abusive, or self-inflicting instincts as kink. And it works!

I was raped by a man in my 20s. A few months later, I revealed what had happened to a friend who was also friends with the man who raped me. She was not surprised, and told me that my rapist had told her and her husband that he fantasized about raping women, and had even had anonymous encounters with women he'd met online to "re-enact" rape fantasies. I also later found out that he had been diagnosed as bipolar, was prescribed lithium but refused to take it most of the time because he didn't like how it blunted his mania.

The kicker is that even after all this came out, this friend remained friends with my rapist. I dropped out of that social circle after all this, saw a therapist regarding PTSD, moved on. Years later I reconnected with the friend and thought we could put it behind us. And then she casually mentioned my rapist, who apparently she and her husband still see regularly, something about his work. It was like it never happened.

You can't make this stuff up. Our society just tolerates rapists. It goes so deep.

I fully expect to see Gaiman getting book deals and having his work optioned for more film and TV shows in the future. People will act horrified for a while and then it will be like it never happened. Except for the women whose lives he totally upended, who will deal with it for the rest of their lives.