Neil Gaiman — the best-selling author whose work includes comic book series *The Sandman *and the novels Good Omens and American Gods — has denied sexual assault allegations made against him by two women with whom he had relationships with at the time, Tortoise Media reports.
The allegations were made during Tortoise’s four-part podcast Master: the Allegations Against Neil Gaiman, which was released Wednesday. In it, the women allege “rough and degrading sex” with the author, which the women claim was not always consensual.
One of the women, a 23-year-old named Scarlett, worked as a nanny to his child.
Sleeping with the nanny less than half your age isn’t a great start for a discussion of power dynamics in a sexual relationship.
I’m not going to assume anything either way, bo the women deserve to be heard, at the very least.
Agreed, but in my experience people in their early twenties can be surprisingly experienced and conscious kinksters, able to voice consent and negotiate intense situations. While people in their fourties can be incredibly insecure, unable to communicate their needs and insecurities, while still wanting to play.
It’s a matter of experience, self-awareness and skills, and those don’t come with age, but with work on yourself and education. We need so much more sex education and communication about these things.
The woman in question doesn’t seem to be an experienced kinkster though, and she should totally be heard in any case. But the age argument distracts from the real issues, I believe.
The age matters less than the power-dynamics of her being his nanny.
Yes, absolutely. That’s what I was trying to say. Also, because of another reply in this thread: I didn’t mean him, or him being insecure, in my example of the fourty year old… I meant a 40 year old at the bottom of the power dynamics. As compared to a 20 year old.
I disagree. I think they are both of equal, but different import.
As in he controls her paycheck but she has physical access to his kids?
Oh, I’m sorry that was unclear. The age/maturity dynamic is as important here as the employer/employee one. I didn’t mean the two parties are on equal footing.
I think under 25 is still not a full adult. There’s research that the brain isn’t fully developed. And personality is still in flux as well. I couldn’t care less about huge age differences, but only when older than 25-30.
Raise the voting age to thirty?
No they still need to be a part of our society and this should have the right to control it. I’m just talking about consent. People under 25 generally are more easily manipulated due to both physiological and sociological characteristics. And there’s not a specific age, everyone is different of course, but as a general rule I find it unethical for someone over 40 to date someone under 25. But I wouldn’t find it unethical for someone over 60 to date someone in their 30s or 40s for example.
Hmm seems that’s leaving a lot of room for disparity, have you considered establishing a testing centre where people go to check their compatibility and permission to date is only given if both are intellectually and emotionally within a set margin of each other.
And I really don’t think we can allow people incapable of deciding their own romantic and sexual partners to make important choices that affect the nation. How can you say someone is too silly to decide who to spend time with but should be able to choose the longterm future of millions of people?
I never said anything like that. I said a person in that phase of life should not date someone in a different phase of life just like a 10 year old should not date a 15 year old, a 20 year old should not date a 15 year old, but a 35 year old dating a 40 year old is not a big deal at all. They are still only 5 years differences, but is it not obvious that the younger of the 10/15 or 15/20 pairs would be at a huge disadvantage in the relationship and so is likely to be taken advantage of even if not intentionally? Now if sex education and relationship education was more common in our society, it might not be as big of a problem for the 20 yo/40 yo couple like it’s not a big deal for a 40/60 couple, but that’s not reality. And there’s still the problem that it’s easier to manipulate a 20 yo than a 40 yo because of physical brain development (again, not everyone but in general).
As for voting, I believe anyone who has to survive in the society on their own should vote. That includes under 18 if they are emancipated for example, IMHO.
People in their forties who are also massive global celebrities? I doubt he was especially insecure.
*60s
Oops. You’re right. I read ‘forties’ from the person I was replying to and wires got crossed.
One of the accusations was twenty years ago so 40s applies.
Either way, he was a big celebrity then and he is one now, so I don’t think we can argue that this was some insecurity on his part.
If you truly believe that a celebrity can’t be insecure, you don’t really understand how humans work.
Well, celebrities have more to lose if their sexual partner becomes hostile, so that could be one way celebrities are insecure about sex.
I didn’t mean him in that example, but the bottom of the power dynamic being 40, or 20.
I’ll disagree about age. At 23, the pre-frontal cortex is still developing and won’t be finished until around 25.
It’s responsible for:
- Executive functions (planning, decision-making, problem-solving)
- Impulse control
- Emotional regulation
- Social interactions and behavior
There is a distinct imbalance between someone in their 60’s and someone in their early 20’s. I’m not saying it can’t be carefully and respectfully navigated, but it has to be acknowledged and accounted for.
It doesn’t sound like that happened here.
Then we have the power dynamic of a celebrity who is also your employer. Add in a healthy dose of fictive kinship due to the live-in nature of a nanny and you’re in a situation rife with the potential for abuse.
IIRC, that study didn’t conclude it stopped at 25, it expected it to stop at 18, but it kept going, and they ran out of funding at 25. A likely conclusion is that it never really stops, it’s just that what was measured wasn’t really development, but “change”.
Okay, source it if you’ve got it, because the idea that a single study ran out of funding at 25 and that’s where the number comes from is such an odd suggestion, as though no one else has studied the brain’s development and neuroscientists everywhere just shrugged and thought, “if only the funding were there.”
Here’s a well-sourced article that concludes the brain continues to develop well into the mid-20’s.
While the brain will always continue to develop and grow, due to neuroplasticity, the concern is whether or not the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for long-term decision making, is properly developed. This development continues into the mid-20’s and is well-documented.
Here’s a 2022 study where they looked at over 100,000 brain scans from people 110 days old to over 100 years old used to draw and affirm similar conclusions.
While 25 isn’t magic number, as everyone’s brains develop on different timelines, it is a rational and reasonable landmark that can be reliably used for broad discussions.
Here’s more from the National Institute of Mental Health and Penn Medicine.
Looking through it now, I believe the conversation I was in was referencing this: https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2014236 , specifically because it’s not a random group of scans. It’s a rather ambitious study, from 1989, and is, as it was told to me, where the journos got ahold of the “25” number. In fact, the first article you link’s sources seem to all have the 1999 version as their first reference, probably because they’re all pre-2014. No mention of money in the paper, obviously, but it does talk of the study as “ongoing”, and I couldn’t find a newer followup, so, uh, yeah.
As I was digging, though, I ran into this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42540-8 , so the number you go with, if it even makes sense to go with a number, is still a matter of what you want to measure, I’d say.
Not sure how exactly your sources are measuring “development”, but at the age of 41 I know for a fact I still have prefrontal neurogenesis happening. I still have neuroplasticity, etc. My brain’s not going to stop developing until I’m dead.
That’s neuroplasticity, which is true.
Right, so do you know how your sources are differentiating “development” from “neuroplasticity”?
deleted by creator
and only a couple hours after they first met…
You never had sex on the first date?
Nope /shrug. Not something that ever happened to me. Married with kids now.
Fair.
Sorry, I’m still at the getting a first date stage
Oh. Well keep your chin up things. Confidence and competency are key.
You were supposed to cheer him up, not shatter his dreams twice!
Say it ain’t so 😥
Gaiman is one of my favorite writers and I actually have stuff signed by him, so…yeah.
But he said in his statement that he’s a Gaiman.
Booo to the people that downvoted you.
This will make a friend of mine sad. She’s a big fan. Sigh. Never meet your heroes.
Ugh. And I liked him as an author. Why can’t it be a crappy writer instead? Now I’m gonna feel bad every time I read one of his works. What an asshole.
Can someone define rape, cuz I’m genuinely confused. He didn’t take their clothes off or force himself on them I gather.
Loosely, it’s rape any time you have sex with someone who doesn’t currently want to be having sex with you. That’s pretty much the broadest possible terms.
At one point, she alleged that he penetrated her despite her objecting because she was in the midst of a urinary tract infection; the incident left her “screaming” in pain. Gaiman denied K’s allegations and told Tortoise he was “disturbed” by the accusations.
At least read the fucking thing.
I’m not prone to believing things until proven
deleted by creator
I have no idea if he’s a bad guy or wrongfully accused…but these two stories don’t sound convincing at all.
Two separate unrelated people.
Both in their twenties
Invites them into second/third base consensual relations and then it turns into rough sex.
I think that it’s an absolutely reasonable assumption that he is into younger women and doesn’t stop after he gets the green light.
But the article is light on details, and he at least deserves to have his say in court over it.
I think that it’s an absolutely reasonable assumption that he is into younger women and doesn’t stop after he gets the green light.
Why do you this is an absolutely reasonable assumption?
Into younger women is pretty normal, but raping isn’t normal. Do you mean it’s a reasonable assumption given these accusations?
Not who you replied to, and Gaiman may be innocent, but we should listen and find out. The “absolutely reasonable assumption” is probably based on his age and how he was raised.
I don’t know how many men you dealt with that were raised with the mindset of “if she said yes once it means she says yes ALL THE TIME,” but some men feel that way. Hell a very famous and still popular movie has “Tell me more. Tell me more. Did she put up a fight?” In the opening of the movie. It seems kind of reasonable to me to assume being raised that “no” is something you have to “fight through” might mess with head.
I’m not trying to justify any actually actions. I’m just saying I would listen to the victims before I dismiss the accusations just because I like the art he makes.
One character saying something in a movie is not the equivalent of anyone being raised this guy. Also the existence of people like that doesn’t make it a reasonable assumption that this is how the guy thinks or behaves.
FFS you’re just cherry picking your way through anything anyone says.
Argue anyone’s whole comment in context or just go be a fanboy. You don’t really mind if you don’t like it but you’re retorts are weak.
The first three statements in my post support the fourth. Just because you don’t like my conclusion doesn’t make it unreasonable.
From the light details in the article, here’s what’s not in question: He came on to his nanny. He came on to his fan. Two separate unrelated people. They are both half his age. They both have unsubstantiated but like stories.
Now any of three things could be lies or deceptions or something else. That’s why if he has something to say he deserves to be heard.
We don’t have any form of denial from his side. No claims of I don’t know these people or you don’t have all the facts. No statements of collusion. I would assume his lawyer said don’t say anything. Well this is fine and does not make him guilty it also doesn’t give us even the slightest indication that any of this is a fabrication.
The next problem is when I say it’s reasonable that is my subjective opinion. If you know him and have a long personal knowledge of his history maybe you have a different opinion than me.
Based on the information that’s brought forward substantiated and unsubstantiated I’m saying that this is a reasonable and likely direction that this will head. That is unless they settle out of court and what you won’t hear about it again.
If you have absolutely no idea, then why don’t you like shut up man?
So your addition to the conversation is that we should not have a conversation. Got it
The contribution I read is: If you didn’t have specific evidence or context to add, then throwing in a ‘don’t trust women claiming SA’ is counterproductive. May not have been OP’s intent, but that’s what a vague distrust of the women’s stories sounds like.
You could do the same.
Knew it.
Did you now?
Sure you did, buddy. Sure you did.
Editing this comment because it appears it has come across to some as doubting the accusers, when I intended to present a skeptical comment about Gaiman. To clarify, my point is that they have plenty of evidence and he has made one rebuttal, which included a lie about one of the victims.
Lighting definitely strikes more than twice.
Just like my dad
…in ten pin bowling, right?
… right?
Or, we could stick to our system of presuming innocence until guilt is proven.
Nah, it’s Trial by Twitter for most of the last decade.
Sounds like communism. /s
I’m going to copy and paste my reply from elsewhere:
Of course we shouldn’t lock someone up based on an accusation but courts are imperfect. Many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit and other crimes are difficult to convince people on. It’s also highly unlikely Gaiman will ever go to a criminal trial over this, like so many other people who commit sexual assault. That’s why you don’t wait for a conviction to support women.
Estimates of false accusations are usually under 1 in 20. This article claims 2-10%. why would you default to that position? Again, we are not a court of law. You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.
Regardless, the evidence presented so far is more than sufficient for a conviction. In the Gaiman cases, we have multiple witnesses and contemporaneous evidence for both women. It’s not just 2 random people making claims. Why would this be a vast conspiracy of 2 women who faked contemporaneous evidence and both have multiple witnesses and physical evidence? What evidence do you have that all of their evidence is fake?
Edit: let’s go one step farther. The 2 women have witnesses and contemporaneous evidence. Gaiman made a claim that one woman had a memory disorder, which has already been proven false. Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence, you are siding with the one whose only evidence has been debunked within hours. Again, why?
I’m all for supporting women. Give them a chance to speak out, make sure they are fairly listened to and taken seriously. You’ve gone a step beyond that, you’ve already decided guilt and innocence and proclaimed it. More, you’re doing so from a position of influence (yes, as a moderator of a large community, that’s what you are). This is the sort of thing that libel charges get filed for (ok, not gonna happen at our current size, but you may want to start keeping that in mind.)
Why would you default to that?
Because that’s the basis of our legal bloody system! Innocent until proven guilty! There’s a thousand law professors out there who can explain it better and more eloquently than I could in a thousand years, but that’s the gist of it.
You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.
That’s correct. We do, however, need a conviction before stating it as fact instead of opinion.
Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence
I beg to differ. I have not sided with any party. What is it about people today that they seem unable to grasp the concept of neutrality?
So what you’re saying is, all I need to do to get one of my exes jailed is get to know another disgruntled ex of theirs? Awesome!
How is that neutrality? If you’re going to troll, do better dude
Troll? I was pointing out the issues in your logic. Was the blatant sarcasm not blatant enough for you?
Thanks for the Times article link, interesting history for discounting women’s claims specifically in rape cases.
Have you ever heard of a lightning rod?
Or this dude?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Sullivan
Lightning apparently can strike at least seven times if you’re Roy Sullivan.
deleted by creator
used to say that a very unusual event is not likely to happen again to the same person or in the same place
As commentary on the idiom and not the topic of the thread, surely it’s an ineffective idiom if the meaning is vastly different from the saying? I feel like everyone had a “it does strike twice, though” moment in their life after hearing this exact phrase
Except the whole “women coming after him” is steeped in misogyny and not reality. How many people get accused by multiple victims of the same thing, with evidence and witnesses? I’m not clear about the 2005 case, but the more recent one has physical evidence and witnesses. Gaiman’s evidence is an already disproven claim. One side has physical evidence while one is lying.
So what you’re saying is, all I need to do to get one of my exes jailed is get to know another disgruntled ex of theirs? Awesome!
Edit: Just to note that parent comment has been ninja edited, multiple hours after my comment was made and a whole conversation was carried out. The original comment was something to the effect of ‘Two people accused him, it MUST be true!’
Yes, it’s a conspiracy! That’s a great first assumption. Classic misogyny
No, you’re the one who started with the assumptions. The correct behaviour is to make no assumptions and wait for the legal system to sort things out.
Jeez, I can’t believe I’m having to explain this to a mod on one of the biggest communities on lemmy.
No one forced you to watch the Amazon adaption of Good Omens. You can have just stuck with the book.
brain dead take
