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: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

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 seek out vulnerable people in order to exploit them.

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?

He's the perp. She's a victim. They are not the same.

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?

coercion is not consent. Control is not consent. Coercive control is not consent.

Thank you for finding a clear way to explain this dynamic.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

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.

People who get off on lack of consent should all be viewed as dangerous, because they are.

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.

PP here. I absolutely think we should talk about that, discuss how it's a common fantasy, AND ASK WHY. Not just state it as a fact and shrug.

It’s pretty obvious. Ever get tired of making all of your life admin choices? That’s easily solved with some form of bondage, light or otherwise. It’s why men seek dominatrices also. I’d venture to guess this is all studied very well and there are many books about it. We aren’t necessarily aware of them. If I gets bored later might do a search. None of this is groundbreaking thinking.

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: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

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 seek out vulnerable people in order to exploit them.

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?

He's the perp. She's a victim. They are not the same.

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?

coercion is not consent. Control is not consent. Coercive control is not consent.

Thank you for finding a clear way to explain this dynamic.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

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.

People who get off on lack of consent should all be viewed as dangerous, because they are.

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.

PP here. I absolutely think we should talk about that, discuss how it's a common fantasy, AND ASK WHY. Not just state it as a fact and shrug.

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: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

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 seek out vulnerable people in order to exploit them.

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?

He's the perp. She's a victim. They are not the same.

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?

coercion is not consent. Control is not consent. Coercive control is not consent.

Thank you for finding a clear way to explain this dynamic.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

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.

People who get off on lack of consent should all be viewed as dangerous, because they are.

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.

Anonymous wrote:According to many, women can’t be trusted to assert their desires or boundaries because we'll invariably lie about what we want in order to please other people. How can we consent to anything? Sex? Medical treatments? Bank loans?
Our entire social contract operates on the premise that adults are strong enough to choose their choices, no matter the ambient pressure from men. If half the world's adult population are actually hapless, helpless, fickle, fragile, and much too tender to perform even the most basic self-advocacy everything starts to fall apart. Women can cancel any agreement we make under "I didn't mean it though."
He is complete scum and I can't assert that enough but she should not have stayed in that situation for years, texting and flirting with him to curry favor. It makes it seem like she just wanted some money.

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: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 :roll:

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 seek out vulnerable people in order to exploit them.

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?

He's the perp. She's a victim. They are not the same.

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?

coercion is not consent. Control is not consent. Coercive control is not consent.

Thank you for finding a clear way to explain this dynamic.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

People who get off on lack of consent should all be viewed as dangerous, because they are.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

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 seek out vulnerable people in order to exploit them.

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?

He's the perp. She's a victim. They are not the same.

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?

coercion is not consent. Control is not consent. Coercive control is not consent.

Thank you for finding a clear way to explain this dynamic.

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!”

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.

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: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

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 seek out vulnerable people in order to exploit them.

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?

He's the perp. She's a victim. They are not the same.

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?

coercion is not consent. Control is not consent. Coercive control is not consent.

Thank you for finding a clear way to explain this dynamic.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

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.

People who get off on lack of consent should all be viewed as dangerous, because they are.

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.

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: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

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 seek out vulnerable people in order to exploit them.

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?

He's the perp. She's a victim. They are not the same.

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?

coercion is not consent. Control is not consent. Coercive control is not consent.

Thank you for finding a clear way to explain this dynamic.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

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.

People who get off on lack of consent should all be viewed as dangerous, because they are.

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: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

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 seek out vulnerable people in order to exploit them.

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?

He's the perp. She's a victim. They are not the same.

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?

coercion is not consent. Control is not consent. Coercive control is not consent.

Thank you for finding a clear way to explain this dynamic.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

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.

People who get off on lack of consent should all be viewed as dangerous, because they are.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone consider the article is only hitting a few of the more salacious bits of this story. What will sell? Imagine there was much more to these women’s experiences than whatever’s shared.

Clearly they weren’t on an even ground. Grooming is pernicious that’s how this took a pair to execute. AP was the silky coercion for the nanny. Then likely outright shock what was happening. The ongoing nature I can’t speak to. I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as they let it happen though. That is not infantilizing another woman, it’s giving her space to have an experience and make choices that may not naturally be my own.

You can empathize without relating.

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: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

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 seek out vulnerable people in order to exploit them.

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?

He's the perp. She's a victim. They are not the same.

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?

coercion is not consent. Control is not consent. Coercive control is not consent.

Thank you for finding a clear way to explain this dynamic.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

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.

People who get off on lack of consent should all be viewed as dangerous, because they are.

YES

Fwiw when bad characters are known it’s more in the norm than not spread the word and look out for others.


I am so sorry your friends did not protect you. I would not speak to them ever again personally. That was vile and I’m so so sorry you were harmed on so many levels.

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: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

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 seek out vulnerable people in order to exploit them.

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?

He's the perp. She's a victim. They are not the same.

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?

coercion is not consent. Control is not consent. Coercive control is not consent.

Thank you for finding a clear way to explain this dynamic.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

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.

People who get off on lack of consent should all be viewed as dangerous, because they are.

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: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

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 seek out vulnerable people in order to exploit them.

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?

He's the perp. She's a victim. They are not the same.

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?

coercion is not consent. Control is not consent. Coercive control is not consent.

Thank you for finding a clear way to explain this dynamic.

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!”

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

The kink community you're not a part of, you mean? I don't regularly see the inner workings of communities I'm not a part of either. I also have the good sense to not assume I know, based on my limited perspective and personal biases.

PP here and I'm talking about the kink community I was FORCED to participate in when a man whose "kink" is rape decided to rape me. I'm also talking about the kink community that shrugged it away when I reported the rape. And the kink community that refuses to consider whether certain practices, or even certain kinks, contribute to rape culture. Because their sexual satisfaction via BDSM is more important than the safety and wellness of people like me

Guess what, everyone has "limited perspective and personal biases." That's the human condition. I know you think being into nonconsensual sex somehow makes a person more evolved and open-minded but it doesn't. I've never raped or sexually assaulted anyone, which is what makes ME more evolved that someone who gets off on nonconsensual sex, i.e. rape.

You need to get some therapy to get this worked out, because you're taking your trauma out on internet randoms on an anon board, honey.

This nebulous "community" you reference... are you referring to actual people in your local kink community? Or "The Kink Community" as some sort of strawman?

Kink =/= nonconsensual sex, and the vast majority of the actual kink community thoroughly understands this, and would call what happened to you what it was: rape and abuse.

I’m not the poster you are responding but do you understand just how incredibly bad you are making the kink community look? I’m more persuaded it’s a community of rapists and abusers enabled by a culture of horrific exploitation after reading your posts, not less.

You already had your opinion, and will use whatever you need to confirm it rather than challenging it. That's not about me, it's about your anti-kink bias.

Actually, I didn’t have that opinion, but based on what I’ve seen over the past few years — including horrifying behavior like yours — I’m reaching my own conclusion that the kink community is in fact a community of abusers who create a language and community norms specifically designed to perpetuate abuse. Yours is a community that takes damaged people and exploits their damage through coercion. We all see it now and your behavior in this thread is just adding to the quickly-growing pile of evidence.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

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 seek out vulnerable people in order to exploit them.

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?

He's the perp. She's a victim. They are not the same.

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?

coercion is not consent. Control is not consent. Coercive control is not consent.

Thank you for finding a clear way to explain this dynamic.

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!”

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.

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.