A few notes that I will add to over time, as this is ongoing: 1) Additional allegations are coming out. A third woman spoke out on the podcast "Am I Broken?" and two additional women who appear to have been willing to give their names have reached out to Tortoise Media, who have subsequently released a 5th episode of the podcast. I have not listened to either of these, because to be blunt about it I am exhausted. I don't know if or when I will look into these things. Keep in mind that there are reasons I don't normally do this kind of content. But just know that I am aware of the new allegations. 2) I feel like I explained myself badly talking about the possibility that the weird reporting might be for liability reasons. The point I was trying haphazardly to make was that any declarative statement about what Gaiman said they would have to backed up in court. It framing it as their understanding of “Neil Gaiman’s position” means there’s less specificity to be able to hit them for in court. If Gaiman sues and claims “I didn’t say that” they can deflect with “that’s the understanding we have from this source, so if it’s wrong that’s on them or it was a miscommunication.” The fewer direct quotes there are (and aside from what can be shown in the Whatsapp history there are basically none) then the less there is to claim was misquoted or taken out of context. I think part of the issue with my trying to explain that idea (which I admit is a little janky but I was desperate to find any reason why the podcast was like this) was presenting it like it was a separate idea from their desire to look like they were being fair to both sides, when really they’re directly tied. Because clear and sourced quotes from Gaiman or his reps would be the best way to position themselves as “showing both sides” but that opens them up to liable if they misrepresent or twist the quotes they might have. So this weird wording and presentation may offer a middle ground of appearing to give both sides without saying anything so direct that they’d be called out in court for misquotes of some form. Again, this was me desperately trying to make sense of it and it’s possible that in trying to do so I just created more nonsense. 3) A couple of folks brought up the podcast’s claim that it’s “Gaiman’s position” that Scarlett has a mental condition that can cause false memories, which I didn’t address. I didn’t touch on that aspect for two reasons (well one overriding reason and two sub-reasons). The overriding reason was the shoddy reporting piled up around that issue so badly I couldn’t disentangle it well enough to know how to talk about it with any clarity. That said I’ll try to give the two sub-reasons. Firstly the recurrent “Gaiman’s account” issue, which is the context for that claim. This is basically one of the only things where “Gaiman’s position” included unsolicited information, as all the others were just “no, it was consensual” and similar straight forward denials. So this felt even murkier than all the other murky stuff for being basically unsourced. But secondly there’s a phrase Scarlet uses at one point: “my delusion.” And unfortunately since it’s a casual mention with no follow up, I don’t know if she’s referring to having previously thought things weren’t as bad as she now sees them, or if she’s making some other reference to having delusions in general. The odds are it’s the former, but again this thing is SO badly put together I couldn’t rule out the possibility that she believes she has some undiagnosed delusional condition and that’s what Gaiman was talking about. And at that point I’m just making way too many guesses about what any of this means and when it came to an issue of mental health that just felt too important to be this unsure of what the hell I even heard. I didn’t leave it out to obfuscate the issue, rather I couldn’t disentangle it to a degree that I felt comfortable trying to parse it. And I own that decision.
IMHO you were quite clear in what you meant by it, and at least I understood why you got "caught up" in the issue. And it's a good thing you did. I didn't even think of it when I listened to the podcast.
My question to you (you, a person I respect and even in many political debates even when I disagree with your conclusion) is, if this was someone you dislike (a la trump eg) would you take as much time investigating?
@@scottbeard9603 Trump has so many proven felonies and and documented SA over so many decades, him being accused of SA/CSA by yet more women or kids would be unsurprising and completely in line with with our understanding of him. When a or multiple SA accusations happens to someone who hasn't been accused of it before, you look into it instead of assuming guilt or innocence until the courts have determined it one way or the other.
Anyone who says "consent isn't sexy" is someone who is highly suspicious _at best_ IMO, and likely a predator of some sort. There isn't much sexier than enthusiastic consent.
I don't think the person in the vid would be all that skilled in this particular domain, judging by appearance. Anyway, the obsession with consent is dumb. No, you don't have to get consent for every little thing. It's only an issue if you keep pushing despite objections.
I'm so confused whenever people say consent isnt sexy. A partner expresses sexual desire and is eager and willing? If that doesnt sound hot, there's something wrong with you
As a repulsed Ace, something very wrong with me because it all sounds gross anyway but I'm always asking permission just to ask someone a question. XD If I was any sort of allo I would ask 12 times if anything was OK and I already annoy people that know me asking once. Even my parents asking if I can have food at any time of day (I'm a carer so leaving the parent makes me nervous just in case they decide to fall out of bed while I'm cooking something I can't just leave) in case they have plans to go out or make a roast.
@@Roadent1241Also a sex repulsed ace and I agree. Also, since you brought up people finding it annoying, I appreciate people asling me if I want food first. It's actually very irritating when people essentially force food on me because they just assumed I'd want it. Asking first shows your consideration for me and gives me the choice to accept or not.
The one main thing proper people in BDSM always insist on is that there has to be consent. There has to be a clear understanding of each participant's green lights, soft stops, hard stops, safe word etc. . You can't just throw up 'Hey it was BDSM ' and think enrollment l everything is fair game. This is for all involved to enjoy, not just one person.
i read a transcript of the podcast rather than listening to the full thing (the horror/true crime style music in those clips you played in the video made me sigh and roll my eyes) but i'm surprised you didn't mention how the podcast went into neil being autistic in the 3rd episode - it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion of him and the allegations and it's ableist as FUCK because the implication there is that it somehow has a bearing on his issues with properly asking for consent. tortoise media severely mishandled these women's stories and injected them with their own problematic views and bad reporting for absolutely no reason
Could you link where you read the transcript for the 3rd episode? It seems really concerning that the podcast may be trying to imply relationship abuse and autism are connected.
@@Mothcryptid98 pastecode .io /s /mp0fs9mf (youtube keeps deleting my reply to you, i'm trying so hard for it to get through) it gets brought up through the framing of "a friend of his mentioned his autism when confronted with the topic" but also this friend only had a good relationship w/ neil and said she'd be "stunned" if the allegations turned out to be true. thus bringing it up as an "explanation" is EXTREMELY irresponsible and ableist and disrespectful to the victims who are putting their trust in this outlet to handle their stories with care.
I was gonna argue with you as an autistic person for a second but then I remembered that if I knew I had problems reading someone's intentions I could literally simply ask "can I do this?" and "if I go too far i -need- you to tell me to stop since I might not be able to tell by your expressions" Or, yknow, having a fucking set safewords like a normal person in BDSM
@@SpecialInterestShowSame hat. I brought it up in a comment that it's why it made it extra disappointing to me. AuDHD and Disabled folk in general are more likely to be victims than perpetrators for sure. I'm not giving him a pass at all I just think it explains a lot that and his age and if I continue to cling to the 'please don't let this have been deliberate' viewpoint then I truly hope he can learn and grow and make things right but I just don't know. It hurts so fucking much to have this type of shit happen over and over again with people that are my SpIns especially. I am desperate for the world to be better than this shit, yanno?
As a SA survivor, I appreciate you not going so far as outright denying the validity of these women’s stories (while also criticizing the way Tortoise Media conducted their research for the article and podcast). I want to also add, since I believe you weren’t aware of it prior to making this video, that SA accusations against Gaiman actually date back five years. To be upfront, they are mostly tweets by individuals expressing a personal interaction with him (rather than a journalistic source), but there is already existing precedent to these claims originating from other individuals who are independent of either of these two women or Tortoise Media.
Knowing the statistics about false accusations, even one woman would be very likely to be telling the truth, if it's multiple victims, I believe them 100%. It's not fun to talk about your imaginary sexual abuse. Those women don't seem to know each other.
The bit that got me was that Gaimen hasn't even denied that one of his partners was a nanny. Like, sleeping with someone that works for you is always gross, but there's an extra level to it when their job is to work in your own house. I dunno. Maybe it's because my wife was a nanny, and I know several current and former nannies (as a result). I think because they are already involved in their employer's personal lives it is so much more important to keep. that. boundary. And to keep it wide. And that's on TOP of the power, age, and wealth imbalances at play. Even if everything was "consensual" I wouldn't consider it good consent. I would still consider it ick. And truthfully, I don't find it hard to believe these women had a hard time saying no. And it doesn't matter, they shouldn't have had to. The power imbalance is just way too wonky. And in the end this also worries me. Because so often Gaimen has been an advocate for queerness and abuse victims, I worry that this man's truly awful behavior will be taken as reason to dismiss the causes HE chose to attach himself to. And that just makes me that much more upset with him. And just so friggin tired of this not-so-merry go round.
I like to think that people are complicated, and try to believe that he genuinely means what he's said in advocacy, even if he knows he has failed to live by it. Maybe even because of it - I want to believe he knows the kind of suffering he's talking about, and at least part of him wants to make amends. When I get upset by something in an environment I go to for safety, I remind myself to "take what you like and leave the rest." Not because he deserves it, but because I need the good things wherever I can find them.
When I heard this news break, I literally said "finally", because as a spec writer who is friends with many people in the workshop scene, I knew that Clarion (the writing workshop that Gaiman had been an instructor for and also promotes) has a "Gaiman Rule". The rule is "instructors are not allowed to sleep with the students". I heard multiple people who attend writing conventions urge each other away from interaction with Gaiman outside of official events. I know that for over a decade, people have been too afraid to talk about negative interactions with him in public, which I think is why this ended up on Tortoise Media and not a venue that could actually burn social capital by speaking out against him. I share this for people who don't have access to the behind the scenes of publishing like I do-- people have been giving Gaiman a pass for a long time, and I think we need to accept that this is who he is. This isn't from out of nowhere among people who are supposed to be his colleagues and peers.
With these types of allegations there is rarely smoke without a fire somewhere. We have only recently started to hold men like Gaiman accountable for their shitty behavior. I think the scope of this is so much large than we think.
This kind of thing seems to happen a lot in various industries sadly. An open secret of an abusive person who has too much power to face real consequences
When I heard the allegations about him, I thought to myself well that figures. I felt the same way about joss whedon. Their was just something fake about them to me. I listened to the podcast around the 4th of July weekend and even I felt it was weirdly conservative. The tone, not the allegations which I feel are credible. Vera did a great job breaking it down.
As a Pro Dominatrix in training, I fucking HATE a lot of this. Like, so much of this is just WRONG on how to play. It just drips with "i read 50 shades and i know what i am doing"
I'm too old to worship people the way I did twenty or thirty years ago, but this still makes me sad. I just discovered Good Omens in the past year, which has the most touching relationship I've seen in decades (Crowley and Aziraphale).
@talonhammer After hearing these allegations, my kneejerk response is to attribute Aziraphale and Crowley's relationship to Prachett, because I'm not sure Gaiman can relate to the truly selfless unconditional love they have for each other.
@@catfancier270 As far as I know from interviews I've watched: When Gaiman first came up with the concept and start of Good Omens, Aziraphale and Crowley were one character. Prachett then suggested sort of splitting the main character into two. The story and relationship was then developed gradually by both of them as far as I understood. But that's info I got from Gaiman interviews. Don't know how Prachett himself would've thought about it.
Terry Pratchett is half author of the book, so I'm far less concerned about the entirety of that story. I do love Sandman, and honestly, Gaiman is too close to Morpheus in being kind of cold and not great with interacting with humanity. It seems he wrote a lot of his angst and mistakes into the character of Dream
@@Elenuaygod they used to be one character? Geez no wonder they're gay it's inevitable lol I also have the urge to credit most of it to Pratchett but I haven't read but like 2 other books by Gaiman so idk
Person from Aotearoa New Zealand here. As the employer, what Gaiman did was absolutely illegal (if the situation was non-consensual). Workplace dating or sexual relationships here are fine, BUT the moment any element of coercion or harassment comes in - we have laws against that. In fact, all ANZ employers are required by law to ensure that workplace harassment doesn't happen. And the definition is based on the recipient's experience, not the boss/harasser ("It does not matter what the person whose conduct is in question believed about their behaviour. The key question is whether the conduct was offensive or unwanted and detrimental to the person receiving the conduct.") Also, I was marching in Reclaim the Streets marches 40 years ago (and it was a recycled activity then!) and the chant was "However I dress, wherever I go, yes means yes, and no means no." So the 'consent is a hard yes' talked about here has always been out there, and *still* isn't making a big enough dent in the overarching culture. Maybe one day, thanks to videos like this one. Cheers!
Regarding the "Master" thing: While I agree the title is fairly standard in consensual BDSM relationships, it is a title that is either earned or negotiated. Approaching someone you just met in the nude, crowding their personal space, and saying "call me Master" is not how any of this should work. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the outlet used the title to invoke an overall shame and even revulsion (which is absolutely wrong, and additionally biases the listener). In the specific instance outlined above, though, a bit of revulsion might be warranted.
@@CouncilofGeeks Absolutely fair. People who do what this outlet seems to be doing (using other's biases to twist and form a narrative) deserve very little by way of charitable interpretation. I do hope I didn't overstep with my original comment. I also want to add (and this definitely should have been in the original comment) that the video was very informative, and does a wonderful job of laying out the situation. Thank you for putting in the time. Here's hoping you're able to talk about something considerably more lighthearted and positive in the near future.
@@marocat4749 I never meant to imply otherwise, and apologize if it came across that way. I’m with (I think) many others who support the victims while acknowledging this outlet did very little to give their stories the consideration and respect they deserve. By muddying the waters the way they have with their questionable sources and reporting, not to mention the addition of a paywall for their “exclusive” coverage, the victims’ accounts are now being put through even more unnecessary scrutiny than they otherwise would have.
The problem is that this sounds like someone who has no idea how BDSM works, wrote about what they thought could go wrong, because they have no idea. It's not a "let's start and see what happens" secenario and I'll tell you what I don't like once we get there. These things are / should all be talked about upfront. Sounds more like someone got their ideas from the sh*** show that was 50 shades.
You should be very, very proud of this video, because it's a 2-hour masterclass in media literacy, which is more than just being able to look at a piece of fiction and nod wisely and be all like "yes, thing bad". You have actually analysed the method of delivery of these women's experiences--Tortoise and the podcast itself, their framing and biases, and the ways they guide their audience along (with the specific example of how much time you spent hammering on the "people say" nonsense they pulled). Brava.
This. Speaking as someone who’s had an employer pursue a s*dual relationship with me, it’s not at all okay. A “I’m attracted to you and I’m interested in a relationship with you when you’re no longer my employee” is one thing. Anything beyond that is entirely unacceptable, abusive, and predatory.
And his exwifes " urg, the tenth to " which i give her the benefit she was frustrated there , doesnt do him.any favours, maybe they talked about harassment , but yeah the speazy pattern definitly existed, and complains, Its believable , and i give his exwife here she frustated mindset not really paying attention
Another reason why Gaiman may not have posted an explicit defense is that he has a larger platform than any of the accusers or of Tortoise Media. If he says anything he amplifies the allegations. From a PR perspective, being silent on the topic in public forums is in his best interest.
The problem with the Lynch-Mob mentality & Trial By Media / Social Media / Internet that Tortise "Media" is clearly trying to gin up their "story" with is that the accusers are never called to provide proof of their allegations & are free to fling shit while at the same time the targets are always on the defensive & any evidence that proves the latter's version of events is dismissed out of hand & any form of self-preservation activity is immediately reverse-engineered into collusion & cover-up & just another part of the overall conspiracy. I.E. - There's wild speculation on certain Reddit threads pillorying Michael Sheen & David Tennant for staying mum on the subject. I suspect that part of the silence is mostly not giving a bullshit non-issue credibility by commenting on it, but I'm wondering if MS isn't also taking a page out of DT's book, who already knows what it's like to be subjected to an online pillorying after JK Rowling painted a target on his back & set loose Posie Parker's Mumsnet-Cult attack dogs on him after DT came out as a Trans Ally.
I'm from the UK, and sex and kink are not at all out in the public, even at pride events. and the police do a piss poor job at investigating sex crimes. the fact that under the Tories we had MPs in the House of Parliament be accused of SA and nothing happened. and in my opinion, Neil Gaiman is, at best, bad at kink. and for me with the resources he has, he has no excuse to be.
Well, at least in the case that happened over 20 years ago, he...possibly didn't. I was there, Gandalf, in the olden days of the internet. *And even all the online and written-on-paper resources can't replace an IRL kink community.* This is what I *always* tell kink-curious people, go find people in your area to hang out with and talk about stuff. Let them teach you. If you wouldn't go skiing in the Alps without an instructor, don't fucking start a BDSM relationship without mentors. It's...basically the same thing; it's all about minimizing risk to yourself and others. And Gaiman probably didn't feel comfortable joining such a group because of his celebrity status. I think he was ignorant and irresponsible rather than actively malicious - but still absolutely responsible for a lot of harm. As a dom I know once said, "I don't need to apply every skill I have, but I need to be skilled in everything I apply."
@@eveleene3613 i think youre confusing excusing and explaining. The Case Made in the Post is that possibly He didnt actually have the resources Hes assumed to have now and thus His actions are possibly based in irresponsible Lack of education rather than openly malicious intent. There is a difference between the two, and that difference is important, because knowing how or why sth happened can teach us how to prevent something similar Happening again. However, He is still responsible - because motivations or reasons do Not Change the Outcome. Thats why it's an explanation, Not an excuse. Noone Said to Cut him some slack, but exploring reasons why gaiman acted the way He did ARE important
I was waiting for someone I trust to cover this in depth, because a lot around the way the allegations were put out left me uneasy and confused. You are a legend. This video is exactly what I needed, thank you.
I rambled about all this on a Twitch stream recently, focusing on the nuance of "he is doing bad kink and bad consent but also the journalists seem to be chasing a narrative and on the part of one may be politically motivated" but hotdamn did you lay it all out so perfectly and clearly here. Way more organized than my frustrated ramblings. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for giving this story this treatment.
Your frustration over the lack of source for the Gaiman quotes reminded me of an article I read 2 or 3 years ago about the prevalence of uncredited ghost writers in movie scores. Large parts of it was heavily focused on the amount of musicians that have written uncredited cues for scores written by Hans Zimmer. This included a really damning quote from him on the subject only to say a few paragraphs later that Hans Zimmer was unavailable for comment. I found my self screaming "well where did you get Hans Zimmer's damning quote from then?" This was especially frustrating as most of the discussion of the article on social media was focused on that quote but nobody was pointing out there was no source for the quote.
"THEN WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP??" hahahaha exactly what I said to myself at that moment. I love you, Vera!!! your explanation about this - at what is known atm - is great.
Haven't finished the video yet, but I'm guessing this is about how the podcast spent one of its four episodes talking about Gaiman's father for seemingly no reason whatsoever? God, it was a weird podcast to listen to.
That was where I quit the podcast. It felt too much like a Netflix true crime documentary. I honestly think it's doing a huge disservice to these women because the 4 hour run-time has put a lot of people off listening to it and the story hasn't actually got much traction in MSM.
So I think this is a prime example of two things can be true at once. These women were exploited for a transphobic agenda but the nanny allegation does have a police report (Rolling Stone did an investigation). Also what Amanda Palmer, who has a ton of her own issues but has always been very emotionally open and revealing in her art, details in the lyrics of her song "Whakanewha" (named for a park in NZ and released 6 months ago) is pretty damning. Transphobes are horrible and want to hurt anyone they deem as trans positive. But I also believe that men who get put on pedestals, especially ones who get glorified for being emotional feminist-y artists, can abuse their power and have it excused or overlooked due to fandom.
Yes they CAN be. Does not mean they ARE. Not one person here knows whether they are or not. And considering how many projects Gaiman has going on atm and how many of people involved are young, trans, LGBTQ and none have said a thing nor left any projects that speaks against your last part of speculation. As a cis gay male CSA survivor I also find myself frustrated once again having to remind some people women do the same things as men if they're fked up like that. All that stuff about glorification etc is just fluff. I don't believe the majority of people glorify a person who is decent nor worship them in any way. It's good that they get recognized for it tho, since we are in quite bad situation right now especially in UK and Nordic Europe. Comes off like a clickbait video "we need to stop worshipping this and that" when most of us don't even do that. Instead we should now come up with our own wild speculation based on vibes? No thanks. I'll stick to reality. Vibes mean absolutely nothing, especially when you're accusing someone of something. And they definitely shouldn't be the base for the accusations.
@@twistedelegance_ All anyone here is doing is speculating and in this case? I believe the victim. There is a police report and he admits he had relationships with both women which shows, at minimum, he engaged with extreme age gap relationships with the one relationship being with an employee on top of it. As a former nanny I can attest to how messed up that is due to the dynamic and how it can also mess with the child involved. I have no respect for this man anymore regardless of what his artistic works mean to me. Also, I never said women don't commit these kinds of abuses, and they certainly can and do, but the list of men who get protected and don't face much consequence at all due to the celebrity factor is far longer. We also have a long history of this sort of thing in art/media (Whedon, Allen, Polanski, Landis, it goes on). That's simply due to patriarchy.
@@chaoscryptid4092 that's fine but age gap is not an issue to me at all, if both are adults. She was 21 at the time they started to have any kind of intimacy as pointed out in the video. (Saying this as a married gay man) Yes, I know many others think otherwise and that's fine. We can agree to disagree . But it doesn't make him a monster nor should he be "canceled" over it. Your response is vastly different from what you originally commented. As for the list, the issue is that the mainstream media won't talk about let alone accept things happen other way as well. The list is in no way accurate since most victims (including myself) never even come out let alone seek justice, no matter the gender.
@@twistedelegance_Am I worried about significant age gap between two adults for something like a one night stand? Not especially without an additional red flag. For an ongoing relationship, I’m definitely side-eyeing it when the younger person is college age. Anything involving an employer/employee “relationship”, though, that I have a HUGE problem with. That inherently lacks valid consent.
Age gaps are a problem because of power dynamics, and the issue of power dynamics is a problem with relationships between an employer and an employee and between a famous person and a fan.
Sameeeee. I knew about this like five days before. Same reaction. I don't know what to believe and I tried too look it up and see whats's going on. But I also saw that the source is apparengly a podcast that wasn't really known before all this, so... I kinda have my doubts. I really want to know what Vera is about to say and what did she find that I couldn't.
The same. And I am very glad, that from the current perspective it looks like Gaiman is at worst, not as good in communicating and ensuring consent as he should be especcially as the dominant, active part in a relationship. Which is worthy of criticism, but does not make him an immoral person, just a flawed one, that needs to learn to do better. And hopefully does. I hope that he deals with that in a healthy way
@@KayleighBourquinthat was one of my main take aways when I read it. Aside from shock and being quite upset. Even if it was consensual, he still is a 60+ man who went after a girl in her very early 20s, which is just very yuck.
@@dustinakadustinhmm, once men get beyond 60 the balance between who is exploiting who shifts, at 70/80, with the shift in the mans cognitive function the woman becomes the one doing the exploiting.
It's possible that this is a consent accident, where Gaiman thought consent was given when it wasn't. But as Vera rightly said, this isn't a whole lot better and is still a huge problem that he needs to address and take responsibility for. A clearer understanding of active consent and communication is critical to ANY relationship, but especially BDSM, as Vera rightly pointed out.
I think even with a huge benefit of the doubt, the best we can say is that he was not being deliberately evil. That doesn't change the fact that he was being evil. Ignorance and ego are no excuse for the harm caused.
Do I want the allegations to be true? Of course not, primarily because I don’t want anyone to have gone through even the slightest amount of that trauma. Do I think there’s something there? Probably. Whether it’s everything that Tortoise Media claims, I don’t know but it sounds like at least something inappropriate happened, even if that’s initiating a relationship with an employee which should never, ever, EVER happen and that should be a commonly accepted baseline standard by 2024. And I also think the victims are being exploited. Do I think it’s odd that only Tortoise Media is reporting on the allegations? Absolutely. I want to know why no other, actually known sources are reporting on the allegations eventually. I want to know that the alleged victims are being treated with dignity by reporters, not being used for an agenda. Everything, absolutely everything, about this situation feels so many levels of wrong, and not in a “the victims are lying” way. Edit: Also, yes, consent is INHERENTLY sexy. And, dammit, Vera, that demonstration didn’t need to be THAT s*xy!
Im actually close friends with one of the victims. Like many my instinctive first thought was, "No, Neil, not you too!" But it's true. He's paid money to silence these women; he knows what he's done is wrong (to put it mildly), and is happy to cover the situation up. I truly feel for all the fans who've had the rug pulled out from under them, here, but the fact remains that this man simply isn’t the nice guy he presents himself as being. Bravo to these women for coming forward (and there are more who have done so, since this video was released), and please, please spread the word--Gaiman's PR firm is doing a depressingly good job of quashing this story.
Yeah, it's the fact of the podcast's previous views and that the story broke the day after the casting of a trans actress as an important trans character in 'Sandman' Season Two that is my main quibble with this whole thing. I'm not saying I think the allegations are untrue. I'm just saying the timing is very interesting.
It feels like they wouldn't have said a thing if he wasn't opposed to their gender critical ideology, the way they ignore all the male predators who are on their side or not publicly trans-supportive. JKR would probably have sent him flowers if he'd come out as transphobic.
There are other quibbles. All the supposed evidence is locked behind a paywall, if it's as true as they claim, wouldn't it be best for all to make it all public? I don't know about their previous views, never heard of them until this week but the timing does seem off and in a way that would benefit them the most. It's also worth noting that the person who broke these allegations to Tortoise is Rachel Johnson, the sister of former UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. She is a confirmed liar and has defended her brother, despite all the proof against him. Gaiman is a long term and outspoken critic of Boris and the Tories, so it's not like Rachel wouldn't have any bias against him. I'm also not saying the allegations are untrue, just that there's a lot more to it all behind the scenes.
This is also some of my thoughts. I am not so willing to separate the stories from the outlet. I think it would be underestimating the women in question. I am positive they knew what they signed up for and who these people (journos) were. To me the agenda against Gaiman is very clear. Does that mean there was no power imbalance? No. But it also doesn't mean Neil should be compared to Rowling or "canceled". We're all sh*tty people and do bad things, not all of them even close to equal. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to take a look in the mirror cause none of us are pure. How we handle the aftermath and grow from it is what defines our character. What resonates me with Council of Geeks is the growth she has shown as a person herself. For example when they mentioned they had a main character syndrome at one point in their live I could relate, and I also do not look at that time of my life with kindness. But I've moved on and become a better person since then. But neither do I keep punishing myself for that time as I've shown growth and become better. Sorry I'm rambling as always.
That is, of course, a reason to distrust the outlet, but not one to disbelieve the victims. Let us not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater!
As a woman I REALLY love it when a man tells me what ideas I can have or not. And I am particularly fond of those men then making laws based on their idea of what I am able think... Like wtf?! I can see how a certain group of feminist women are convinced, that BDSM is a continuation of patriarchal abuse patterns and thus think consent is notbä possible. I think they are wrong, but I understand their persoective. But having an elderly man condescent on me by telling me, that my submissive desires are basically actually not my idea but that of some man who forced them on me by deception is just infuriating.
@@hannajung7512 This is also a massive problem in gay communities. I can't even count the times I've been with an older man when I was younger and I was being forced to do things I didn't want to do because I knew they would hurt me in the long run as my disability makes my body somewhat fragile, but at that moment I had signed up for a Master/Slave session and didn't think I could say no. I did say this isn't a good idea several times but it was always disregarded. There are contracts available for free at several bdsm websites where both the slave and the master fill out everything they consent to, what they do not and how many times the contract will be renewed in a year with changes. I suggest anyone into kinks prints out these contracts and use them asap.
I mean, those feminists are wrong because they're seeing BDSM through patriarchal lenses when BDSM is fundamentally queer. Cis and straight people who get into BDSM don't get its history and how much important consent is, and while I get their perspective is heavily ignoring the queer history of BDSM. That's why they're wrong because kink is queer, is people not understanding how the whole subculture started. These are men that ignoring what BDSM truly is, ignoring how much queerness is in it and using it as a way to justify treating women when again, BDSM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PATRIARCHY BECAUSE IT WAS INVITED BY GAY MEN, yes gay men can be misogynistic but BDSM is also something queer women participate in, those feminists are wrong because they don't research into BDSM and its culture
Yes wanting to be abused by a man is not feminist. You can do what you want but it can be judged. Society totally has nothing to do with why a woman would agree to be degraded by a man.
Hot take, something can be unacceptable, morally wrong, even traumatic, while also not being illegal, or even 'should' be illegal. The victims trauma is valid either way, but giving law enforcement more specific power to regulate these sorts of things is dangerous. Adults are allowed to make choices they regret, that an integral part of autonomy, we don't need authorities 'protecting us from ourselves'
I agree. That's how I feel about detransitioners; it truly sucks that they have regrets, but that's the price of freedom! We should be able to do things we regret, even things that may cause us harm. My sovereignty over my body is complete.
I have a few points: 1) I've listened to a lot of true crime podcasts and they always cite their sources and how they found information and will acknowledge if someone wants to stay anonymous. This statement applies to legitimate podcasts i.e. in the crime sphere to educate, bring awareness, and make a difference vs in it just for internet fame, gossip, and spectacle. 2) As for the allegations, even the best case scenario absolutely disgusts and disappoints me, I know people can be capable of both terrible and good things, but it's hard to absorb yet another public figure abusing their power in such a sleazy manner. My heart goes out to every woman that he's harmed whether ignorantly or on purpose.
Yeah, that's where I stand on it. Even the best case scenario looks bad. I find it weird that no other media sources have done an investigation on this other than to report on the original story/podcast. That said, it's possible the victims don't want to relive all of that again. This reminds me that I want to watch Vera's other video about what to do with the work of such creators because I have to find it.
I think Neil having Scarlet talk to the therapist is incredibly underhanded for exactly the reason you mentioned. If her comments to the therapist can be brought up in a legal context, then it can bolster Neil's claims that everything was above board. I really can't rationalize him doing that for any other reason, especially considering that therapists are meant to be able to compartmentalize everything from disturbing intrusive thoughts to someone confessing outright abusive behavior. I do think there's plenty to criticize this podcast for from a kink, poly and otherwise queer perspective. But I do continue to feel a bit nauseated when the focus of this discussion seems more heavily weighted toward the wrongs of this podcast as opposed to Gaiman's actions. I've said this elsewhere many times, but our "best case scenario" here is still an older, wealthier, more powerful man using his position to pressure young women into sex. I continue to wish this story had been picked up by any other outlet at this point, as the Tortoise connection has seemingly muddied the waters of the actual issue here.
@@martymcflown3707 There was never any discussion of legal case, and even now there's a very low chance of anyone actually going that far. Therapists have many patients, and some of them know each other. It is the therapist's job not to discuss these things with a patient. While what you say can be true, it can also be the case that since Neil already offered to pay for her 6 months rent he figured he'd also pay for the therapy sessions. I have recommended my therapist to many people, including my family members and husband. I don't have an upper hand by recommending a professional I go to. I have absolutely no power over her job, as a patient.
Both very good points. I didn't know before this that if you have someone else talk to your therapist that what they say doesn't have to be kept confidential
I actually can think of a good reason to have someone you're in conflict with speak to your therapist. I know a few people who have had meditated sessions and even separate sessions with one person's therapist so that the therapist can better understand what's going on and do a better job helping. I am not necessarily saying that's what was happening or the reason, but I think people don't always know that this is a done thing, ESPECIALLY with relationships that are romantic/sexual but are not traditional. Everyone knows about couples counseling, but there are gradations between one on one up to full blown couples therapy.
@@milkymoonbeamI didn't know that either. 😮 I guess it makes sense because they don't have a therapeutic relationship, but that's still kind of wild to me.
I was very shocked when this story came out, I've spent hours just reading about it and listening to the podcast. I was a recent fan of Neil Gaiman, but I had quickly come to really respect him. I enjoyed his Tumblr presence, had recently read Good Omens and was looking forward to reading more of his books and watching the Good Omens series. So I was in disbelief. Never to the point of genuinely not believing the women, but my mind definitely had trouble accepting it. I understand why some are more suspicious, Tortoise Media certainly doesn't have the best reputation and the podcast did feel off at times, and I don't want to believe it either, but I very much doubt they were completely making it up. But to appease the suspicions, let's take only what Neil Gaiman himself said happened. At 61, he hired a 21-year-old live-in nanny, and on her first day, hours after they met, they shared a bath where they kissed and cuddled. Granted, it's the podcast that said Gaiman said this, so they may have twisted his words in some way, but I don't see how you un-twist this into something that's okay. The power dynamics are just too great and he should know that. And the actual allegations are much worse. I don't know if you cover this, but I've seen a lot of people (admittedly anonymously on reddit) in the comic book / publishing scene say he's had a reputation for being sleazy around young female fans as far back as the 90s, including at least one person who talked about it months before the allegations came out, so that unfortunately also lends credit to the allegations. It's sad that this reputation wasn't more widespread, but alas. Writing this out was helpful in putting my thoughts in order, thanks for covering this, I look forward (in a weird way) to watching the video. (For future reference, this comment was left before the video's premier.)
Exactly this. I firmly believe that we should listen to victims, but even if Neil's version of events is 100% the truth he's still a creep. Taking a bath with a 20 year old girl under your employment, are you kidding me. I'm so disappointed in him
I will say he came to my school when I was in college and had weird vibes. I kinda stopped reading so much of his stuff at that point. So when the story came out I kinda shrugged cuz honestly it made sense to me.
@@kaitlyn1689 Young woman, not young girl. She was 20 years old at the time, so definitely not a girl. I'm not trying to downplay anything you say but in these situations, accuracy is important and 'girl' has strong implications of someone younger, or even underage. :-)
I love it so much that The Society (tm) went from "No means no" to "enthusiastically consenting". I am a Fangirl (tm), so I read A LOT OF FANFIC. And I love the shift to enthusiastic consent. It is just so... lovely! And I agree with Vera wholeheartedly: If you cannot make consent sexy, THAT IS A SKILL ISSUE! BE BETTER!
looks like there's a third victim that's come forward about this (in the "am i broken: survivor stories" podcast on spotify). also was in her early 20s, and took place between scarlett and k's situations. this podcast treated the victim's story a lot more sensitively and didn't inject its own problematic views around sex or sensationalized it. the chances that we can take neil on his word are pretty low at this point.
Also the podcast is done by a non-binary person, so idiots can't handwave the story as "coming from a TERF podcast" anymore. we can just chalk everyone who claimed that as a rape apologist.
This situation is very upsetting overall, I have a lot of complicated feeling about it. I searched for a bit after the story came out, and there seem to be a lot of sketchy details, like they refusing to show some evidence despite saying that they had it, but also the women who spoke up deserve to be heard and supported without condemning Gaiman yet, since the truth still has to come out before we do any judgement on anyone.
I've heard they also have evidence, texts etc, that back up Gaiman's version and that is some of the material they refuse to release. Rachel Johnson, the woman that broke the story to Tortoise, also has very good reasons to be hugely biased against Gaiman. He's a very outspoken critic of her brother, Boris (the former PM) and she has openly lied to defend her brother in the past. I really hope these allegations aren't true but I agree that all sides need to be heard, without the biased parties involved, before any real judgement can be made. Unfortunately, that never happens and it's likely too late here as well.
There can be legal reasons why the evidence cannot be shown. Privacy laws, or laws about ongoing investigations can create situations in which a victim has all the evidence but is at the moment not free to make them public until there is a legal decission on the case and the evidence is made public via the court files after being deemed admissable.
@@hannajung7512 If there are legal reasons why it can't be showm they they shouldn't claim it exists. A claim without evidence to back it up is a baseless claim of no merit. Also, any legal situations would also prevent them from revealing the stuff against Gaiman, yet they are quite happy to do that.
@@Elwaves2925that argument is bollocks, if it can't be released for legal reasons, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I am not taking sides here, you just aren't making sense, its like you didnt understand what you are responding to. Now, I'll give you a more valid response, if the evidence is part of an ongoing investigation by police then NO, IT SHOULD NOT BE PUBLICLY RELEASED AS IT COULD BIAS A TRIAL But, you would then say "we have evidence, it can't be released publicly as it part of a ongoing investigation. The evidence likely is NOT part of an ongoing investigation and likely is not very compelling, so no one would turn on Gaiman if they heard it, that's likely why they don't release it. But it exists. So, despite me being broadly on the same side as you, I find your response weird. A non sequitur.
@@hannajung7512I know what you mean, and I think that in that case they should have said “we have evidence but we can’t show it because our lawyers advised us not to” or “because it’s being investigated”. Saying that you have evidence but you’re not going to show it without a good reason it’s weird and suspicious. I’m not going to say that it doesn’t exist, maybe it does, but we can’t know for sure because we don’t have any evidence that it exists and we have to take their word as the truth.
I'm a Kiwi, so if anyone has any questions about NZ culture, law and society etc. to understand the context better, I'll be happy to answer to the best of my ability.
@@kerlygerl I don't know, Scientology isn't a big thing in NZ and he is British. Religion as a whole doesn't have the same significance in NZ as a whole compared to the US, for example, it is hard to get any position in the US government if you're not Christian but (at least since 1980 idk exactly when) every prime minster has identified as agnostic and being religious is seen as a negative, with our current prime minster being the first open Christian to hold that office (since idk when) but he promised to not bring religion into office. As far as I know, this is true in the UK too, so being a Scientologist is a huge red flag there more so than in the US if I had to guess.
@@plasmktan Scientologists are known in the US to be an abusive cult. I refuse to call it a religion. It brainwashes people and abuses initiates. It's a terrible cult that shouldn't exist. I wouldn't put it past Gaiman if he IS a scientologist to do some shady things. The main scientologist celeb at the moment is Tom Cruise. That is the cult's poster boy.
@@plasmktan from what i know, he once [indirectly] insulted one of his siblings in the 'dedication' bit of his book/story. i later looked that sibling up and found that they were a scientologist...
@@plasmktan Read about the PM on wikipedia, what a twat! (idk about how good he actually is in relation to being a pm, like economics and all that, but his personal view are interesting to say the least)
"He hasn't said a dang thing" Gaiman is typically pretty active on Tumblr, interacting with fans and other authors, but since this came out he's disappeared entirely. He's definitely gone to ground, which...yeah. Disappointing. Edit: for clarity I'm not saying he should say something, the Disappointment is over the whole thing not specifically him being incommunicado Obviously he wouldn't say anything, which does add to the weirdness of "Gaiman's account", because why would he say anything to anyone about this? ::shrug::
To be fair, these are very serious allegations and if I was accused and innocent (personally I believe the allegations about him) I would not speak publicly until I had consulted my lawyer and gotten the go ahead.
regardless of the validity or the truthfulness of these women's statements, it is very normal for a public figure who is publicly accused of anything to go radio silent while working with their lawyers, usually demanded *by* the lawyers to prevent their client from saying something stupid
"No one will consent to degradation" 😂😂 living in this world and having to work for some people is far more degrading than anything that can happened in a BDSM session... And we agree to that everyday 🙄
OMG thank you! Go tk work as a sex worker and perform super degrading acts because you need the money? It’s woke to support that. Have a boyfriend that’s 10 years older that you love? That’s problematic and the age gap alone makes you incapable of consent. I really think that some of these conversations have gotten so strident and extreme. I think too much internet is partially to blame.
@@CarlyonProductionnot quite sure if you are referring to my comment specifically or just in general. I was pointing up that we do a lot in capitalism that we wouldn't do if we had the choice. I wasn't talking about this cases in particular, I have no authority whatsoever to judge this situation or a similar one. I do believe that sex work is an option as any other in work options, as long as you are legally capable of making such a choice. As I said in the original comment we do a lot of degrading things in this life for a piece of bread and that's something that people intentionally forgets when sex work is in the center of the discussion, the problem is that we HAVE to degrade our self to be able to exist in this world not that our genitalia is involved in the matter.
@@bilemcin I don’t disagree with anything you said at all. I was just using the sex work example in a similar sense - we are obsessed with policing interpersonal relationships and yet we say very little about people being exploited by the market. It always blows my mind to see people on the left doing this!
Yeah, actually the entire premise of this world seems to be for people to consent to shit that they really shouldn't through a combination of lying, brainwashing, training in school, social pressure and threats from the authorities that they will jail you for doing pretty much anything. This is why, I dunno, I often feel like a lot of kink and sex work is tainted because it's done in the context of a world wherein people are deprived of pretty much all agency by the poverty that is forced upon them (quite artificially). But yeah, thanks for that comment. "consensual degradation" is exactly what is happening in society, except I dont' think it is really consensual.
I'd never been to this channel before and I was so afraid I was going to click on this video and find some misogynistic bullshit... I didn't. I found a very interesting, nuanced deep look into a very complex thing. I'm not even half way through the video yet, but I'm pleased that RUclips decided to recommend this to me.
Thank you Vera for analysing this upsetting situation so thoroughly. I'm heartened to see that you've come to the same conclusions as I did, after researching both the allegations made in this messy feckin podcast, and the pre-existence of rumours of messy feckin behaviour by Gaiman in the past. It's a sadly way too common thing that people into kink don't learn the ways to do it safely and consensually before diving into it. In his *multiple layers* of positions of power over these young women, he had so much *more* responsibility to thoroughly learn the right and wrong ways of practising kink properly, and cleave carefully to the *right* ways... Even in the 'best' (most generous to gaiman) versions of what happened with scarlett and k, he totally failed to act in Risk Aware, Safe and Consensual ways. And that was his choice, to prioritise his own desires over their safety. So dishonourable. So dsappointing. So infuriating how many are leaping to defend him, like 🤦🏻 Can't they see how that just continues to perpetuate the culture of normalised misogyny, or do they actually want that? It also sounds to me, from listening to AFP's recent art, that she's processing her anger at what he's done, and might still be doing, too... That's just my own speculation though 🤷🏻♂️
@@chrispalmer7893 He's been getting away with it for at least 20 years, who's to say he wouldn't have gotten away with it for another 20? At least this gets some more people looking at this and doing good journalism, I hope.
There's not saying no, actual consent & enthusiastic consent. Just because you consent to X once does not mean it is forever & for everything. You can revoke consent at any time. Your consent *can* be violated. Why is this so difficult to understand?
One of the two journalists, Rachel Johnson, really shouldn't be labelled as such, she is more often a political/social commentator, but in a world where two of her brothers are in politics, she wanted to carve her own path... Which is why it's ironic that she chose the label "journalist" given that her brother, Boris started out in life as a "journalist" with a history of making stuff up... The Johnson family are united in one aspect, they believe that they should be listened to on any (and every) topic.
Hearing this news absolutely broke my heart. I have never met the man in person but his work meant so much to me. Until I heard the news two days ago I literally listened to Stardust and his other works every night to go to sleep (I am not resting well now) for years. Ocean at the End of the Lane helped me sort through a lot and made me feel understood and truly healed some wounds I wasn't willing to admit were there. Hell I got a signed copy of Ocean through a fellow fan after mine got stolen from the post BECAUSE he generously replied to me on Tumblr asking about options. Gaiman always struck me as the type of person to support women or folks in situations he's being accused of. His work inspires me and I just...my heart is not strong enough to be let down by yet another artist/writer. I'm just not strong enough. This video was recommended to me and I am so grateful you posted it. I also did not want to believe it is true but I do. Period. Asterisk, but two truths can exist at the same time with contradictory viewpoints and intent matters to me so for my personal fucking sanity I am clinging to the charitable view--until proven otherwise. Not to use this as an excuse but because his work means so much to me as someone who wants to write and is AuDHD hearing him say on Tumblr he considered Autism his superpower & his curse makes me inclined to think he just wasn't thinking about it to the extent he should and that whole suicide bit was an attempt to relate to her not to diminish even if it came off that way. (But yeah as you said the dynamics were totally fucked even taking the age gap out--they were all adults at least.) It's just the charitable view is I want to believe in it for my sake but he's probably never getting my money again anyway I just am not ready to toss books but it's not to say the pain and views aren't 100% accurate to those he hurt in the slightest. Really though my feelings don't matter I'm just rambling I feel crushed that my SpIn Author could get himself into a situation where things could be grey at all. It's so disappointing to me and I wish I could stop falling for artists where this is a thing?? It happened with GACKT too and I'm just like...could I find better people to admire please? Total aside. Sorry. It's weird that I have this as an instinctual type apparently. It just is heartbreaking and disappointing all around. I just am left wanting to beg for it to not have been malicious because for whatever reason that matters to me. I hate this. Like, I wish that I could stop putting people on a pedestal because it hurts so much to learn people are human and flawed no matter what. I do it with everyone and I can't help it. I'm not ready to engage with his work again it's too much right now and I will cry all over again but thank you for putting into words all the things I felt were off about the reporting. I couldn't access the podcast and had a weird feeling about how little was out there--something wasn't adding up. But yeah. At the very least...I hope all parties involved get the help they need to heal (& in Neil's case, to do better forevermore and learn & truly improve.) Sorry this is all over the place I'm just so beyond disappointed and sad that people keep experiencing pain like this overall. I wish it were better.
I feel your pain. I have never been the type to be fangirling on anybody but Gaiman is pretty close. His words just pull on my heart strings in all the right places. I am in the middle of his Masterclass and at one point he says that the characters he wrote are a part of him. Everyone has a dark side and everyone makes mistakes. I choose to believe that he is a good man at heart and that, yes, what he allegedly did was wrong (waiting on more evidence but it does look pretty damning) but that he did not do it of out of malice. So if he owns his mistakes and legal punishment involved at least from my side there will be "forgiveness" (this sounds like too heavy a word since I am not the one mistreated but I can´t think of a better right now). I mean to say that the parts of him that grew to be the characters that resonate so deeply with me will still be the cherished characters and their stories for me. I am not going to toss out his books. Not sure if that helps you but I mean to say you are not alone. That being said I explicitly don´t mean to say that he is not to be punished because he is a celebrity or anything. The victims deserve to be heard and to get justice - no question about that. I really dislike the trend of cancelling everything because someone did something wrong though, and sometimes even before anything has been proven beyond doubt. It is too easy nowadays to ruin someone just by claiming sa. Even when it gets proven that the allegation was wrong- the smut sticks to the person. And like I said earlier, everyone has a dark side. And no, I am not saying the women made anything up. I was merely explaining that I take things with a grain of salt. PS: I should also mention I only stumbled across the allegations the other days and I just noticed this video is weeks old. Plus i was writing this post before I finished the video. I might change my view about him but I am still not going to damn his work.
@@moonsister5810 Not a whole lot more has come out save for more people speaking out but I am currently at the point where I do believe it. It still hurts so much and I have a ton of complicated feelings about it. I still wish it wasn't true but it genuinely sucks all around! I am so sorry either way you're just finding out. I wrote this very raw but yeah. I am glad it resonated either way!
As other comments have mentioned, Rachel Johnson writes for The Telegraph which is a successful mainstream newspaper. This story ended up on Tortoise because the Telegraph wouldn't touch it with a barge pole and Rachel wanted an outlet that reflected her position on kink shaming. It seems fairly obvious, as Tortoise made it clear that they had no clarification or contact with Gaiman or his public relations managers, that the "positions" they describe are those reported by the women that they have interviewed. The imbalances in the power dynamic are important but makes the options for sexual partners very limited and does not, imo, disallow consent. I'm not going to argue that the possibility of feeling forced isn't very likely, just that consent can still exist under those circumstances. I also think that confirming consent in every instance would be an ideal when there is such a significant power imbalance. The "yes" needs to be really, very enthusiastic.
Thank you so much for taking the time to go through this with such care Vera. You're right, the women involved deserved so much better and it speaks volumes that you were able to approach this with 100 times the nuance that the so-called journalists did. The "best case" scenario as you laid out is unethical enough to make me not want to engage with Gaiman or his work any more. I'm honestly heartbroken, as his books were so comforting to me when I was wading through the confusing and painful aftermath of my own sexual assault. Your words at the end were so appreciated too. Thank you again, and hoping that you get to discuss something less soul destroying soon.
That podcast was such a wildly inappropriate means of delivering these accusations. It's dramatized/sensationalized just like a true crime podcast is directed for increased entertainment value. I do not know how to feel about the accusations. I cannot pass judgement on that. But that podcast... Just wow. That is not "news." I struggle to even call it journalism.
I forget who now, but someone on RUclips did a great video about rape and cited a study and in it women who initially said they hadn't been raped would then go on to describe a situation that was not consensual in their end and it changed my brain. We really do such a terrible job, as a society, of teaching young women and men what consent looks like and there's such a push for women to be passive that setting boundaries about sexual acts we don't want is incredibly difficult, especially if the other party is pressing the issue and not fostering communication. Until I got into my current relationship with my girlfriend, I'd had several sexual partners but never had sex consensually. I knew in my gut that was wrong, but I didn't have the words to say it because I was raised to believe my body was for other people and if he enjoyed it and I cared about him, I would let him do what he wanted. If I had fun for even one bit, even if the rest was awful and I just wanted to be anywhere else doing anything else, that was how it was supposed to go. And that carried over even when I realized I'm a lesbian. So, I feel for these gals who were young, inexperienced, and didn't feel like they could say anything. It doesn't surprise me that Gaimen would plow through without getting enthusiastic consent and think everything was fine. I've known so many people like that. It's their responsibility to be a good partner and communicate properly and they should be held accountable, but they are working against their cultural upbringing. That's an everyone problem and we have to fix it
We can always go back to, ooh, Orson Scott Card. Or Asimov, he remains very popular despite the grossness. But gosh there are so many good writers, it's boggling how we seem as a culture to only want one
Tbh idea that someone didn't intent to do SA, but still traumatized people by practicing BDSM in incompetent and reckless manner with people totally new to it, is not much (if at all) better than intended predatorial behavior. Consent is not ass-cover, at least this is not consent primery function. In the end it should be about reasuring our partners mental and physical wellbeing. Here this mark was seriously missed.
A friend sent this to me, and when I saw how long it was.... I was planning on just skipping through and catching the highlights and the summary. But the more I watched, the more impressed I was with the approach to this truly awful developments with Gaiman. I can't tell you how much I appreciate how thoroughly you examined and critiqued the journalistic standards of the original outlet. Your final thoughts on the implications of the allegations were helpful, too. So happy to have had the opportunity to get your take on this. Huge thanks for taking the time to get into the weeds with this crisis and share your take. Much respect!
Respect for you doing this. I think no one wanted to read about this, or listen to the podcast. Some people have, and I respect them very much. Thank you for spending your time on this. You know what, I'm going to add that this is actually a really good coverage of the whole situation. It captures the main aspects in a thorough and structured manner. You cover the issues with Tortoise Media while respecting the accusations themselves and you make a clear stance on the issues with the different possible scenarios. You show a critical eye for detail and you speak from a place of authority when it comes to the BDSM stuff (which I haven't seen many people do). Like, this is genuinely well done.
Some of the responses here sure are something 🙄. No folks, telling middle aged people to not go after much younger people on purpose IS NOT AGEIST. Ageism would be telling older people they can't have relationships or sex, or assuming they are abusive towards their younger partners by definition, if there is no other indication of that whatsoever. Its a very different thing to find it alarming that someone in his 50s or 60s, famous and wealthy as well, deliberately pursues much younger women that he is in some kind of professional or parasocial relationship with. Especially if he does not do any work to acknowledge those power dynamics, and, most damningly imo, does not actually consistently try to establish enthusiastic consent or look after their wellbeing. And, if all of the specifics of the stories are true, he at times actively ignored or dismissed their discomfort. This combined with the new episode from the Survivor Stories podcast seems to establish a pattern that is A LOT LESS like "middle aged man charmed by pretty young women, genuinely thought they consented to everything but could maybe done more to make sure?" & A LOT CLOSER TO "smart and relatively privileged man deliberately pursues much younger women and tries to push their boundaries and try out whatever he wants, without establishing consent while making sure there's juuuuuust enough of a grey area that he can claim it was all consensual". On a lighter (...ish, bc when i actually think about it its pretty depressing) note: between this and Ophie Dokie's (good) video on this, finding out about those UK laws has been WILD. get out of people's bedrooms you weirdos!!! going to take a break from this topic now, might edit this after i finish the video.
Rachel Johnson has a sex collunm in The Daily Telegraph (right wing British Newspaper which is getting progressively more unhinged). It's behind a paywall but my mum has a subscription which she shares with my partner. Having read Rachel Johnson's collumn it doesn't surprise me that this podcast has an element of kink shaming. The most recent one I read she advised the LW not to pursue a BDSM relationship with a work colleague who LW manages because she should be trying to have a more 'normal' relationship with a man and not because it would be a weird abuse of power to initiate a sexual relationship with a subordinate.
On consent: As someone who is cool with kink, but also as someone who is turned off by talking/talking dirty ... There are ways to agree in advance and agree to safe words or no during should someone change their mind. I don't need society to shift the bar to someone constantly getting consent during. Nor do I need society deciding that, as a woman, I need men to protect me from my choices. Young adult women are still adults and have the right to consent to dating older men. If a woman doesn't want to have ongoing consent conversations, or wants to sleep with a man whose power she finds attractive... it seems to me she has the right. In an attempt to "protect" women we are moving towards infantalization. I think we need to be having more nuanced conversations rather than making blanket decisions at the expense of female autonomy. (For context I'm a 51 year old cis het woman who slept with older men at points in my life and am a survivor of DV and SA in my younger years)
Concerning the aversion to dirty talk - there are also so many ways to signal consent nonverbally. And that is so hecking sexy too! Both need to be on the same page, but it immediately adds this element of being able to build tension. I use a bracelet with with click-in button. And nothing beats the appeal of my partner looking at me and then peeking at my wrist. Or seeing me wear an especially cute dress and staring at the little go signal on my bracelet. Or their expression changing when I leisurely change out the "not in the mood button" for the "please go ahead" one in front of them. It's fun, it's cute, it's sexy - and it's also great because both of us can struggle with words haha
I mean yes, young women have agency, but if they themselves are of the opinion they had a bad experience with dubious consent/being taken advantage of or something along that line, they should be taken seriously there as well, shouldn't they? As also a cis het/bi woman approaching 40, I can tell you I "consented" to things when I was younger not because I genuinely wanted and enjoyed them, but because I kind of thought I should, or that I signaled consent before so I shouldn't take it back if not absolutely necessary. I wouldn't do that anymore today, because I feel more confident and ok with who I am so I don't need to gain someone's approval through sex or think too much about how I *should* feel or behave. And my experiences were not coerced, the only person who "coerced" me in a way was myself. My point being, a lot of young women still haven't quite figured out how to wield their sexuality in a way that's for their own benefit instead of it being owed to others (if they're your partner, if they're nice, if they buy you a drink, if they help you etc). Difference in life experience does create a power imbalance, and not the fun, playful kind. Putting an emphasis on consent (however you achieve that: discuss things beforehand or negotiate in the moment) helps with finding out if the other person really wants to do the thing or if they just kind of go along with it.
agreed, even if she later regretted it and in retrospect thought it was creepy or felt that consent wasn’t 100% (which is valid to feel after any sexual encounter), it’s as if a woman in her 20s is a completely helpless victim. while people are trying so hard to fight the patriarchy, they’re becoming extremely misogynistic. i also feel somewhat hesitant to say that consent is always black & white, when it’s actually a very complicated and messy real life thing. of course it should always be given freely & enthusiastically before any sexual act, but life (and sex) are way messier than people try to make it seem. idk, the women coming forward about it have every right to feel how they do, it’s just all very strange to me when people jump to such harsh conclusions on things that are really not that cut & dry
This has been the point I've been making for several weeks now. Does it give me slightly icky vibes when a much older man is with a younger woman? Often, yes, because come on man, she could be your daughter, what could you possibly have in common with her? That being said... Does that mean she is essentially a child who can't think for herself? No. When I was 20, if I'd had the chance to sleep with then 44 yo Jeff Goldblum, would I have done it? YES. When I was 22, would I have slept with then 56 yo Harrison Ford? Sweet Jesus YES. Women in their 20s are not children ffs.
@@Toksyuryel For a brief moment I'd wondered the same, but I can only hazard a guess that since there's contact in a number of the sports there, that someone was bright enough to say something like "but... rugby" and someone else important furrowed their brow and nodded to acknowledge they'd been outsmarted.
I do find it very strange that it hasn't been covered by mainstream UK news outlets.. like.. not even the Daily Mail who would leap at the chance of being able to take down a "Progressive". The Telegraph did have an article but again, just re-reporting using the podcast as a source.
It may be that the really bad quality of this podcast has discouraged reporting for the present. Plus the guy has undeniable *national treasure* status here in UK.
The Telegraph has covered it a little bit which is not so surprising as Rachel Johnson writes for them. I think that perhaps this may lead to other papers looking into it. There must be some anxiety over a potential liable case which is preventing reporting. But if the other papers can quote from The Telegraph I am sure they will as this is less risky.
On second thoughts maybe he's taken out a super injunction? But surely if the subject of the injunction has been made public through the podcast then that should make the injunction void.
@@kinolibby6580 Thing is though about libel etc is that any self respecting paper or other news media would look at a potential story.. and then actually do their own research. It just strikes me as odd that given just how huge this news would be, no one else has jumped on it. Because an editor or journo could easily look at the original podcast and go "hang on, is any of this actually true, this is huge" and then go investigate, rather than regurgitating what the podcast. The fact that there aren't any other papers that have picked it up in that manner makes me think that the best case scenario may actually be the most likely: that he's certainly had some morally iffy and definitely questionable relationships but that the other claims may be unfounded. It really is just the fact that no one else seems to have done any independent investigations on it that irks me, which is usually a journalist's bread and butter before they even get a story down. Like, there's nothing stopping them from giving the women who have made the allegations a call, or indeed Gaiman himself to ask for a comment.
I hate that it's always the nanny 😔 also she was like 40 years younger that's definitely a power dynamic especially since she was employed by Amanda and Niel. You did a wonderful job covering this and the point you made about the BDSM dynamic and how it's abusive if your partner isn't into masochism.
Oh, nice to see someone talk about this! Personally, I'm really not sure how to feel about the whole thing. Something feels a bit off, but I can't pinpoint what. To be fair, I don't have all that much knowledge on the details. Looking forward to watching this video!
I'm adopting a wait-and-see mode. I can't comment on this with any objectivity. I am biased, very biased in favor of a personal hero. And I've lived through enough news about idols having feet of clay. I really don't want to live with the possible fact of another hero having done awful things. Writers and artists can be, and have been, callous monsters. It won't kill me, but it'll shake my faith in people.
As a follower of Gaiman's Tumblr seeing Wait and See in this context absolutely took me out and I can't believe this is what managed to make me crack a smile. Obviously a total aside and probably unintentional on your part but yeah. I hope we get more information too but woof is it hard. I was very shaken too.
Aside from the relationships/allegations themselves, this is a great example of the importance of media literacy. The current world we live in is really focused on headlines that appeal to emotions, and discourage people to critically think, consider, or investigate where news is coming from. I love the in depth investigation you’ve done into the framing, sources, and overall journalism going on here
I want to say that I felt so safe wading into this with you, after avoiding as much as possible because it has been upsetting. As someone who grew up in NZ and experienced *things* there, NZ police handled it so badly. Including asking questions implying *things* were my fault based on my attire and location. I also had to go into a large, open office, remove my clothing save for underwear, and be photographed up close by a male officer with no one else present. This was twenty years ago. Hopefully they have changed since. I left the country not long afterwards.
The pattern is ESPECIALLY crucial when you're dealing with complex areas of consent, especially around kink, that could be conceivable an error / miscommunication / misunderstanding. If someone is in a dozen dominant relationships and 11 of them say "he was great at consent" and 1 had a bad experience, I'm willing to chalk that up to a mistake. If 12 say "I was uncomfortable, consent was confusing and there seemed to be a lot of miscommunication", he's absolutely doing it on purpose and the 'grey area' is a trick he's using to obscure his abuse.
I'm more concerned personally with the harm that's done. "He's normally really good at consent" but just made a woopsies doesn't matter if the woopsies was rape physical harm or murder
The silence from comic news sites that normally can't resist a story like this suggests that the industry might be trying to protect him. If enough people keep talking about a story that it's clearly impossible to kill it, embargos like that do tend to get lifted eventually.
Again - they're treating it like unhoused Radium b/c try as they might, Tortise "Media" are jerking themselves off if they think they can out-bullshit anyone not stupid enough to fall for a ginned-up bag of smoke.
It’s absolutely valid to feel “I really, really hope this isn’t true” AND “If this is true, I really need to know”! Both can be true, and more people who hope things aren’t true need to be willing to dig in. I also hope it isn’t true, but want to know if it is. I’ve been overwhelmed by important and urgent life stuff, so I won’t have an opinion until I finish listening to you.
I loved Gaiman's work... but WTF was he thinking with this BS? Men, can you stop going after women _3 to 4 decades_ younger than you, _especially_ if there's an additional power differential? I've been in this type of situation, and afterward realized I was abused - couldn't speak, didn't have a safe word, would have ended it but was so 'stuck' in the scene I just went through with it, but I knew there was no way to legally press charges. But I was young (21) and stupidly passive/unwilling to stick up for myself. Older people ought to know better than to pursue young people for sex amd especially kink. What happened, if true, is wrong - in a Russel Brand-way wrong. The text message frequency and contents are confusing. When I reached out to my scene partner afterwards and said "Hey, this sorta sucked and I feel used - I would have stopped," I heard "Look, you may feel used, but I did no using." So Gaiman responding with "I feel so bad I want to die" is interesting. Maybe I'm too close to this, having been through it, but WTF Gaiman. 😡🥺😭
From my perspective, the lack of communication, of setting up a safeword and other precautions, of negotiation ahead of time, is so much more the issue than just the age gap. I can see that it would be *possible* for a relationship with a large age gap to work, but *only* if the older partner is very, very careful to walk the younger through everything, to check in constantly and to listen to and act on everything they say, and teach them that it's actually the sub who has control of a healthy relationship.
@@CritterKeeper01 my only point, having been that age when I got into the scene, after knowing my kinks for YEARS, is that fantasy does not prepare one for reality, and the more experienced partner (from age or time in the scene, but a LOT of the time it's age) has a lot of responsibility to - as you say - check and double check. But I've begun to believe (30+ years later) that approaching a naive/young partner for scening is the act of someone who absolutely does not want to hear 'no'.
@@christineherrmann205This is some good nuance. There is a big, big difference between an older adult approaching an inexperienced barely adult for a scene and an inexperienced barely adult approaching an older adult for a scene.
20 years ago you didn't expect to hear "yes" but you did expect the person to stop if you said "no". Even today it's a weird concept for us oldsters. But we all should know by now. Great video, thanks.
@@Aster_Riskfor many “oldsters” they weren’t even dating during those 20+ years (if they were happily and monogamously married, for instance). So yeah, 20 years wasn’t enough because there was no practicing of the new behaviors. Might not even be aware of them in any concrete way, in fact, if one wasn’t actively dating. It’s actually a pretty big mindset shift, from No Means No, to Yes Means Yes. It’s not an excuse for failing to learn and grow, once one is in the dating scene again (say from the death of a spouse.)
It's never felt fair to judge past events by present standards, or older people by relatively new cultural ideals. I'm 22, and even I remember watching the distinct linguistic shift in what "counts" as consent. Seems like a lot of people genuinely believe that every single instance of someone failing to say "yes" out loud was r*pe. No matter when it happened. But cultural standards were different! A lack of a no did usually mean yes, before. In some situations, it still means yes. The whole thing is so much more nuanced than can be summed up by only one person's version of events, or a snappy headline. Either way, it is creepy to sleep with your nanny. I know people who work in in-home childcare and housekeeping, and the boundaries are already so blurred that it's important to keep things as professional as you can, in the vast majority of cases.
@@Aster_Risk Something can only get drilled into your head through exposure and repetition. I have been purposefully single and solitary for over 20 years, so my only dating experience is from a very different time. Date rape was not even a term when I was 18, over 30 years ago, or at least not one I had heard. I quickly learned a lot, but accepted behavior kept evolving and I was not in the game.
I really appreciate your take, Vera because it does reflect the conflict I have about what to do with this information. I’ll be honest that my opinion on Neil has been going downhill over the last couple years because of some things I’ve heard and seen in the Good Omens spaces before this came out. I think I’m going to keep my books especially Good Omens because it wasn’t just his work and I’ll watch the show for the same reason. However I’m less sure about Sandman or anything else he comes out with. Honestly, I’m Just sad and disappointed in him and I want to have a more reputable news outlet investigate this independent of this weird podcast. I hope the women get the help they need regardless
I was also confused about whether the responses Gaiman had supposedly given were actual quotes with sources or not, but bringing up anything like that in public got people hit with "you're using trans people to protect rapists!" Even if you explained that you believe the women who came forward; even if you think there's enough evidence from people in the industry that this reveal isn't even surprising (apparently Gaiman being a problematic shit was a well known secret in the industry, which...is its own fucking discussion to be had...). Gods, someone said "they'll look for dirt on David Tennant next", to which I replied with "true, but also I hope David Tennant hasn't done anything" and I basically got called a rape apologist?? It made me give up on social media once and for all. The truth will come out in the end. And maybe it is better if I don't say anything that could be somehow misconstrued as defending Gaiman.
Honestly, you shouldn't be harassed or called a rape apologist even if you DID defend Gaiman, or suggest that he might not be as bad as people are saying. IMO, it's totally fair (and responsible) to do your due diligence before blindly believing anybody involved. Maybe Gaiman did do all the stuff he's been accused of, maybe he did some of it, maybe none of it. Maybe he was being malicious, maybe there were misunderstandings, maybe the encounters were traumatic for the women but not actually non-consensual. Especially with how much ideas around what "counts" as consent have shifted over the last 10-20 years. Makes me genuinely a bit sad to see nuance thrown out the window so quickly when allegations surface. I totally understand erring on the side of supporting victims, but I feel like there might be more balance to be had. People go all mob mentality at the drop of a hat.
1:08:07 Something drilled into writers is "describe what is there, not what isn't". If you say "there were no trees on the hill" instead of "the hill was barren", your audience still has trees in their mind. I guarantee even bad journalists know this
There is also the scenario that, since Boris Johnson's sister is in the podcast, incompetance runs in the family. I get the impression that NG has a lot of the old school rock star entitlement and this leads to predatory behaviour.
Thank you for deconstructing this report, that's very educational! I feel bad for these women. Whatever they went through, this podcast isn't doing them many favors.
If it helps, Johnson is well-known in the UK - imagine if you'd seen these allegations on a show hosted by Don Trump Jr. Much the same level of trustworthiness in the public mind.
For real. I'm clueless enough to not really know anything about her before this, but the mention of Boris alone is enough to turn her name from green to red in my psychic closed captions.
Listening to your explanation on the reportage, I too can't help but feel frustrated with how the victims' allegations are handled by Tortoise Media 🤦🏽. I trust the victims, but the bungling of the story by TM is unforgivable. They deserve better news outlets to bring their allegations to light (and to hold Neil Gaiman accountable). I also agree with your assessment on Neil's behavior in all of those cases - at best one could say that he was (is?) _clumsy_ with consent, which made things go bad (and that's an understatement 🤦🏽) in all those allegations. At worst... he regularly took advantage of his young female fans and that's just... 🤢🤢🤬🤬. At any rate he needs to be taken accountable of his misdeeds. Commiserations to all whose positive feelings on Gaiman's works are now tainted due to these allegations. I hope you could manage it and go out of it with little loss to yourself. Take care y'all
I really really enjoyed your final verdict on this. You're giving this the nuance it deserves by calling out that even the best case scenario doesn't look good for Gaiman. It's painful because man, I liked that guy's works. This is definitely going to lessen some of that enjoyment. But I'd rather be well informed about it than ignorant.
Thank you for doing this. As a lady kinkster myself, my immediate gut reaction to this whole debacle was oh great, the edgy author in a poly marriage is in trouble for being too kinky. My second reaction was immediate sympathy for the victim, because I recognize how confusing and strange it would be to be exposed to that kind of behavior without any prior context. Without knowing all that went on, I totally get how strange this must seem to anyone who doesn't have a personal understanding of the nature of this kind of situation. Many people adore certain scenarios, fantasies or situations and i can only imagine the horror of realization on both sides. That one has found themselves in a situation they don't understand and they can't control, or that one has inflicted that same scenario on someone else. Nobody needs to be evil or conniving here, pushing boundaries can often lead to mistakes made. Sometimes horrible mistakes.
"Nobody needs to be evil or conniving here, pushing boundaries can often lead to mistakes made." Thank you!! we need more nuance like this in our opinions.. instead of going on saviour marches and witch hunts.
I understand that some level of nuance is important in understanding these things. But this comment sometimes reads as both-sidesing to a degree that minimizes the harm of consent violation, making it sound like it's just as bad for the wealthy, powerful 60 year old man who violated consent as it is for the 20 year old live-in employee whose consent he violated and was careless with... (e.g , the part focusing on "the horror of the realization on both sides). Most people who commit abuse of various kinds aren't evil monsters. But that doesn't mean that someone with a pattern of seemingly predatory behaviour should have their harmful actions minimized, either. Our culture already leans so heavily towards abuse apologism... powerful men who abuse people don't really need us to defend them.
The fact that this story was broken by such a kink-negative platform is a travesty. Hearing Scarlet's account as they presented it, I can't tell if she didn't consent or if she just felt pressured by the power dynamic and regretted it. I've had a couple experiences in kink situations where consent was given, but then the actions were regretted later (and I've been on both sides of the equation there), and I don't doubt that underinformed and mishandled kink can feel like abuse and lead to fear and depression, even if affirmative consent was given at the time. It could be that the story is presented vaguely because Scarlet said yes at the time, but didn't understand what she was consenting to and felt bad about it afterwards, perhaps because he took things farther than she thought he would or because she felt she couldn't be honest about her feelings due to the power imbalance. If that's the case, he's sleazy and bad at BDSM, but the journalists would know very well that a lot of people would dismiss Scarlet's feelings immediately if they knew she initially said yes to a lot of things, so they're being vague about it. In any case, Gaiman doesn't look good from the age gaps alone, so I feel like this would be a more productive conversation if everyone could focus on the power dynamics between celebrities and non-famous people and between people of different ages. Whether Scarlet didn't consent or "consented" but only because she felt pressured by her boss, it's messed up either way, and this could be a great opportunity to talk about that if Tortoise hadn't made it all about kink.
Great point about returning the focus to age/fame/employer imbalances. I think those are more ...subconscious/archetypal triggers that can turn what *may* feel like a balance at first, into accumulative feelings of imbalance/loss/naïveté shame, later. I hope that doesn't sound like an assumption against her, but I realized that I've never even heard the points you've mentioned be recognized when considering preventative communication prior to consensual kink, and that seems like a problem. I know it wouldn't be a productive legal argument because there's nothing specific enough there on paper (other than, perhaps, "employer"), but as a sociological conversation, it seems essential that whomever the power tips in favor of, has the final obligation to make those points. Just a bit more consideration in this encounter...such as Gaiman's obvious power bankroll being reason to ask if she would like to dom, may have made a huge difference in her overall perception of the encounter, and emotionally provided some padding. If you're going to hold all the power, and then demand someone call you "master" it seems common sense to make very sure the other person is confidently turned on by subbing, or, is even familiar with what it is. Clearly, her age should've, at the very least, flagged Gaiman to inquire about her level of familiarity. That's what makes it feel lacking in empathy, and somewhat predatory-ish. Sorry for the rant ;)
If she was pressured she didn't consent. And of course it came from an anti kink place. Pro kink people would have just further abused her for makeing them look bad just like you are
Yes. As I've come to understand it, a soliciter is the one who does the intake and initial consultation and analysis of the case, whereas the barrister decides whether or not to take the case and directs all prep for the legal actions and court appearances, as well as actually being the one who appears in court in those (anachronistically silly) wigs
28:22 The whole discussion about “not saying no ≠ yes” is such an important aspect of these situations. The whole Melanie Martinez allegations resurfacing also show this, as “she didn’t say no” was literally in her defense for being accused of coercing someone into intimacy. I’m very glad you explained that so directly, I wish more people would, because it apparently hasn’t become clear to the wider online world for some damn reason.
It's extra nauseating to hear all the ads crammed into the podcast, on top of all the really sloppy "journalism"... let's max out profit off this really sad and upsetting story.
I saw this on a random Reddit post awhile ago and hoped beyond hope it was false. Especially as I have not heard anything else about it since. Then I saw you were covering it and immediately felt sick. I still do. But thank you for all the work you did. I don’t know where I’m going to land but I appreciate that I have some better information now.
A well thought out and heavy video, I hope you take the time to recover all the energy this must have drained. Thank you for an informative video, I will have to wait and see what my feeling are too 🙏🏾❤️
I read that through the grapevine these things have been happening for years, which genuinely broke my heart. So yeah, not thrilled at this news, but it seems like it's corroborated. Even without the whole extra bits, without the corroboration, without the kink... I still find it distateful. He did admit to having a relationship with them, and they were in their 20's while he was in his 40's which is skeevy to me.The clear power imbalance in both relationships kinda feels icky.
I mean, yeah, it does come off as a bit odd to be that age and dating someone that much younger. Power imbalances and age gaps are definitely hard to navigate. I don’t know that I’d usually be attracted to someone who was that much “below” me, because I’d feel so paternal. But it must be genuinely hard to pursue totally equal relationships when you're that famous. Like, the power imbalance is kinda inescapable at that point, unless you only date other famous people.
@@taylorbowser571 Takeuchi Naoko, of Sailor Moon fame managed to marry someone her age in her 40's of equal status. (Togashi of HunterxHunter which she also helped with on occasion. She did the first image in the manga--the background in the first panel.) by asking friends to help hook her up. She was his fan, but from what she's drawn of the relationship it wasn't in huge power imbalance way. He had equal fame and status, though granted in shounen. I think one could game dating in a way so there isn't a double power imbalance. I mean the age imbalance, the fame imbalance, the riches imbalance is dizzying. I don't think it's impossible. BTW, I'm not anti-kink, and not anti-BDSM or anti-open marriages, but the important part is the consent bit. You need to double up on consent with each of those and part of BDSM is the planning stages ahead of time, which honestly I wish fiction would discuss more. (research into it on my end). Enthusiastic consent needs to be doubled up front.
@@kimyoonmisurnamefirst7061 I think that that’s a pretty rare example you threw out. Yes, it’s possible to find someone else of similar socioeconomic standing and status, but that’s really limiting. You shouldn’t have to give yourself such a narrow dating pool. Adults should be free to date any other adult they want, with the exception of teachers and (usually) people above them in the workplace. It might be more complicated if there’s an imbalance due to age or wealth, but I trust people enough to be able to figure that out, or leave if it becomes uncomfortable, provided they’re not literally held hostage.
@@taylorbowser571 The age imbalance shouldn't be in place. Someone barely 20 has a different brain development than someone 30. (Washington Post). Even then, there are different life goals. I still don't think it should be just 20 (as in this case) with a 40+ year old. Especially considering she was "dating" him according to the story before she was 20, which veers somewhat into grooming. That's a yuck. 20 year olds don't know what they are doing when they are dating 40 year olds. But 40 year olds absolutely know what they are doing--if you follow public stories, yes. I have no issues with 30 with a 40 year old, if that floats their boat, but 20 year olds are at a different life stage. 20 with 30 year old is really stretching it. But 20 with 40+ year old is a hard no. The consent gets a bit shaky, especially with the "I tried to sleep with my nanny" that's a power imbalance and not clear consent. But I also think youth is oversold to adult males which is a whole thing to cover.
@@kimyoonmisurnamefirst7061 I find it really patronizing when people say adults in their twenties can’t make certain decisions. Yes, the neurology is a bit different, but that doesn’t immediately equate to “people in their twenties have no idea what they’re doing”. There’s a marked difference between being a slightly less developed adult and being a child. I agree that it’s dicey, and should be done with extra care, but it’s not always inherently predatory. If I casually slept with or dated somebody who was 40, it’d be odd, but I’d be making my own, informed decision. I do agree that it’s not cool to sleep with your employee. But, like, again, people make their own adult decisions. If my boss tried to make a pass at me, I’d be creeped out enough that I’d simply quit. And it’s not as if she’d been working there for more than one day, so she obviously wasn’t already reliant on the income.
i literally just watched a doctor who episode written by Neil gainman and opened RUclips to look for some doctor who content. and this was the first thing recommended to me when I opened youtube, come oooooonnn -
@@Lisa-x3n5x he wrote 2 episodes: 'Doctor's Wife' and "Nightmare in Silver' - both in Matt Smiths era. I actually watched every NewWho Episode and saw a lot of potential in Jodie Whittaker. Unfortunately Chibnal had not so good ideas, awkward scripts and a general misunderstanding of the doctor. The new Episodes (called 'NeoWho' hihi) are really good, have some cringe writing here and there, but also lovely queer representation. And the first black, openly gay doctor, which is really cool. Ncuti Gatwa is absolutely brilliant as a doctor!
Hooboy, you are incredibly right about the outlet that gave the news. I want this to be investigated the right way for the women's voices. And still, I am sitting here with a sudden feeling of ick, disappointment and sadness. Neil Gaiman seemed like a good guy... But alas, even with the best interpretation in mind, he comes off as pretty shitty and not very aware of the position of power he had and still has. Thank you for finding out so much and give such a wonderful explanation. This really helped me understand this all better. Thank you and stay strong.
While it's great that a better understanding of consent as well as non vanilla practices is becoming more widespread, there's still a lot of people who will judge others for not remaining within the bounds of traditional relationships. There will always be a tension between the need for privacy for celebrities (and anyone in power) and the need to protect those who could experience abuse at their hands. I find it helpful to think of intimacy as money. We all understand that bribery and extortion is illegal (well, except for the US Supreme Court). If you have authority over another person, it would be inappropriate to expect them to pay you directly on the regular. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's helpful. What is the best way to protect vulnerable/young people? In the longer term, comprehensive sex education and clear boundaries about consent should be the goal. However, in the shorter term, listening to victims is the very first step. Regardless of whether perpetrators are punished, the publicity could encourage any potential victims to seek protection. Perhaps powerful people accused of abuse should have to pay for prevention strategies, like a chaperone/CCTV for any interviews or training or whatever is found to be most effective.
When it was mentioned that one of the people in the podcast was Boris Johnson's sister, there was a thought that the podcast was mainly there to paint a target on a openly progressive writer, especially one who has been an ally to trans people in the horribly bigoted UK. A large part of me is in disbelief about this, and a lot of that stems from these journalists. If new news comes to light, especially from proper journalists that actually do their jobs far better than the ones on the podcast, my stance will most likely change.
A few notes that I will add to over time, as this is ongoing:
1) Additional allegations are coming out. A third woman spoke out on the podcast "Am I Broken?" and two additional women who appear to have been willing to give their names have reached out to Tortoise Media, who have subsequently released a 5th episode of the podcast. I have not listened to either of these, because to be blunt about it I am exhausted. I don't know if or when I will look into these things. Keep in mind that there are reasons I don't normally do this kind of content. But just know that I am aware of the new allegations.
2) I feel like I explained myself badly talking about the possibility that the weird reporting might be for liability reasons. The point I was trying haphazardly to make was that any declarative statement about what Gaiman said they would have to backed up in court. It framing it as their understanding of “Neil Gaiman’s position” means there’s less specificity to be able to hit them for in court. If Gaiman sues and claims “I didn’t say that” they can deflect with “that’s the understanding we have from this source, so if it’s wrong that’s on them or it was a miscommunication.” The fewer direct quotes there are (and aside from what can be shown in the Whatsapp history there are basically none) then the less there is to claim was misquoted or taken out of context.
I think part of the issue with my trying to explain that idea (which I admit is a little janky but I was desperate to find any reason why the podcast was like this) was presenting it like it was a separate idea from their desire to look like they were being fair to both sides, when really they’re directly tied. Because clear and sourced quotes from Gaiman or his reps would be the best way to position themselves as “showing both sides” but that opens them up to liable if they misrepresent or twist the quotes they might have. So this weird wording and presentation may offer a middle ground of appearing to give both sides without saying anything so direct that they’d be called out in court for misquotes of some form.
Again, this was me desperately trying to make sense of it and it’s possible that in trying to do so I just created more nonsense.
3) A couple of folks brought up the podcast’s claim that it’s “Gaiman’s position” that Scarlett has a mental condition that can cause false memories, which I didn’t address. I didn’t touch on that aspect for two reasons (well one overriding reason and two sub-reasons).
The overriding reason was the shoddy reporting piled up around that issue so badly I couldn’t disentangle it well enough to know how to talk about it with any clarity.
That said I’ll try to give the two sub-reasons. Firstly the recurrent “Gaiman’s account” issue, which is the context for that claim. This is basically one of the only things where “Gaiman’s position” included unsolicited information, as all the others were just “no, it was consensual” and similar straight forward denials. So this felt even murkier than all the other murky stuff for being basically unsourced.
But secondly there’s a phrase Scarlet uses at one point: “my delusion.” And unfortunately since it’s a casual mention with no follow up, I don’t know if she’s referring to having previously thought things weren’t as bad as she now sees them, or if she’s making some other reference to having delusions in general. The odds are it’s the former, but again this thing is SO badly put together I couldn’t rule out the possibility that she believes she has some undiagnosed delusional condition and that’s what Gaiman was talking about. And at that point I’m just making way too many guesses about what any of this means and when it came to an issue of mental health that just felt too important to be this unsure of what the hell I even heard. I didn’t leave it out to obfuscate the issue, rather I couldn’t disentangle it to a degree that I felt comfortable trying to parse it. And I own that decision.
IMHO you were quite clear in what you meant by it, and at least I understood why you got "caught up" in the issue. And it's a good thing you did. I didn't even think of it when I listened to the podcast.
I 💯 lost it when you flipped the dry eraser board. Thank you for the time and labor that you invested digesting the 4 episodes 🌈💖
You were very clear. And I appreciate your emphatic and clear analysis of this.
My question to you (you, a person I respect and even in many political debates even when I disagree with your conclusion) is, if this was someone you dislike (a la trump eg) would you take as much time investigating?
@@scottbeard9603 Trump has so many proven felonies and and documented SA over so many decades, him being accused of SA/CSA by yet more women or kids would be unsurprising and completely in line with with our understanding of him. When a or multiple SA accusations happens to someone who hasn't been accused of it before, you look into it instead of assuming guilt or innocence until the courts have determined it one way or the other.
“If you can’t make consent sexy that’s a skill issue” is one of my favorite lines I’ve heard all year
Anyone who says "consent isn't sexy" is someone who is highly suspicious _at best_ IMO, and likely a predator of some sort. There isn't much sexier than enthusiastic consent.
Indeed, like they have never enjoyed hearing their lover whisper/moan/scream YES in pleasure or longing?
Vera's demo was genuinely erotic too!
And the examples after that were just... My brain wasn't ready for that.
I don't think the person in the vid would be all that skilled in this particular domain, judging by appearance. Anyway, the obsession with consent is dumb. No, you don't have to get consent for every little thing. It's only an issue if you keep pushing despite objections.
I'm so confused whenever people say consent isnt sexy. A partner expresses sexual desire and is eager and willing? If that doesnt sound hot, there's something wrong with you
I can't imagine this scenario: "do you want to f@ck?"
- "yes"
"Well now that you said that I don't want to anymore!"
As a repulsed Ace, something very wrong with me because it all sounds gross anyway but I'm always asking permission just to ask someone a question. XD If I was any sort of allo I would ask 12 times if anything was OK and I already annoy people that know me asking once. Even my parents asking if I can have food at any time of day (I'm a carer so leaving the parent makes me nervous just in case they decide to fall out of bed while I'm cooking something I can't just leave) in case they have plans to go out or make a roast.
Especially because the reverse would then be, "Not getting consent IS sexy," and that's all kinds of effed up.
@@Roadent1241Also a sex repulsed ace and I agree.
Also, since you brought up people finding it annoying, I appreciate people asling me if I want food first. It's actually very irritating when people essentially force food on me because they just assumed I'd want it. Asking first shows your consideration for me and gives me the choice to accept or not.
@@genera1013 Also true! I suppose that's a good analogy to use on people?
my ex was all "consent isn't sexy" and "it ruins the mood" and that really damaged me, so thank you, Vera, for calling bullshit on this behavior
consent is the sexiest,
"Yes!" Is the sexiest word in the English language ❤
Consent is why my wife and I have a fantastic relationship with lots of sex and experimentation. Consent is awesome and sexy as fuck.
Consent is sexy because being desired is sexy. Period.
@@brysimm404good way to think of it - what could be more of a turn-on than your partner enthusiastically affirming the sex you’ve proposed?
The one main thing proper people in BDSM always insist on is that there has to be consent. There has to be a clear understanding of each participant's green lights, soft stops, hard stops, safe word etc. . You can't just throw up 'Hey it was BDSM ' and think enrollment l everything is fair game. This is for all involved to enjoy, not just one person.
It's like the old saying "the difference between a felony and a boxing match is consent".
Abusers love BDSM because it provides access to vulnerable people who "want" to be abused. And a easier way to say "she was asking for it".
@@awhartig5847 if you mean that in an agreeing way, yeah 100%
SSC (safe, sane, consensual) is a rule in BDSM that is highly ethicized
@@afellowpotatoor RACK (Risk Aware Consensual Kink).
i read a transcript of the podcast rather than listening to the full thing (the horror/true crime style music in those clips you played in the video made me sigh and roll my eyes) but i'm surprised you didn't mention how the podcast went into neil being autistic in the 3rd episode - it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion of him and the allegations and it's ableist as FUCK because the implication there is that it somehow has a bearing on his issues with properly asking for consent. tortoise media severely mishandled these women's stories and injected them with their own problematic views and bad reporting for absolutely no reason
Could you link where you read the transcript for the 3rd episode? It seems really concerning that the podcast may be trying to imply relationship abuse and autism are connected.
@@Mothcryptid98
pastecode
.io
/s
/mp0fs9mf
(youtube keeps deleting my reply to you, i'm trying so hard for it to get through)
it gets brought up through the framing of "a friend of his mentioned his autism when confronted with the topic" but also this friend only had a good relationship w/ neil and said she'd be "stunned" if the allegations turned out to be true. thus bringing it up as an "explanation" is EXTREMELY irresponsible and ableist and disrespectful to the victims who are putting their trust in this outlet to handle their stories with care.
@@Mothcryptid98 trying to send the link without youtube deleting my reply
docs.google.com/document/d/1G__TR17rBnzwgEv3ftKviQHMT1anZ-NFaRXUfoeyRjQ/edit
I was gonna argue with you as an autistic person for a second but then I remembered that if I knew I had problems reading someone's intentions I could literally simply ask "can I do this?" and "if I go too far i -need- you to tell me to stop since I might not be able to tell by your expressions"
Or, yknow, having a fucking set safewords like a normal person in BDSM
@@SpecialInterestShowSame hat. I brought it up in a comment that it's why it made it extra disappointing to me. AuDHD and Disabled folk in general are more likely to be victims than perpetrators for sure. I'm not giving him a pass at all I just think it explains a lot that and his age and if I continue to cling to the 'please don't let this have been deliberate' viewpoint then I truly hope he can learn and grow and make things right but I just don't know. It hurts so fucking much to have this type of shit happen over and over again with people that are my SpIns especially. I am desperate for the world to be better than this shit, yanno?
As a SA survivor, I appreciate you not going so far as outright denying the validity of these women’s stories (while also criticizing the way Tortoise Media conducted their research for the article and podcast).
I want to also add, since I believe you weren’t aware of it prior to making this video, that SA accusations against Gaiman actually date back five years. To be upfront, they are mostly tweets by individuals expressing a personal interaction with him (rather than a journalistic source), but there is already existing precedent to these claims originating from other individuals who are independent of either of these two women or Tortoise Media.
Thank you, that's really valuable to know.
That’s because he’s a guilty
Knowing the statistics about false accusations, even one woman would be very likely to be telling the truth, if it's multiple victims, I believe them 100%. It's not fun to talk about your imaginary sexual abuse. Those women don't seem to know each other.
Yeah I’ve heard there’s been talks of him for a **while**
I've heard vague references to this, I'm hoping somebody can collate receipts at some point
The bit that got me was that Gaimen hasn't even denied that one of his partners was a nanny. Like, sleeping with someone that works for you is always gross, but there's an extra level to it when their job is to work in your own house. I dunno. Maybe it's because my wife was a nanny, and I know several current and former nannies (as a result). I think because they are already involved in their employer's personal lives it is so much more important to keep. that. boundary. And to keep it wide.
And that's on TOP of the power, age, and wealth imbalances at play. Even if everything was "consensual" I wouldn't consider it good consent. I would still consider it ick.
And truthfully, I don't find it hard to believe these women had a hard time saying no. And it doesn't matter, they shouldn't have had to. The power imbalance is just way too wonky.
And in the end this also worries me. Because so often Gaimen has been an advocate for queerness and abuse victims, I worry that this man's truly awful behavior will be taken as reason to dismiss the causes HE chose to attach himself to. And that just makes me that much more upset with him. And just so friggin tired of this not-so-merry go round.
yes yes yes so much this, totally agree and well put - wish more people mentioned the power imbalance. full consent not possible.
I like to think that people are complicated, and try to believe that he genuinely means what he's said in advocacy, even if he knows he has failed to live by it. Maybe even because of it - I want to believe he knows the kind of suffering he's talking about, and at least part of him wants to make amends. When I get upset by something in an environment I go to for safety, I remind myself to "take what you like and leave the rest." Not because he deserves it, but because I need the good things wherever I can find them.
It feels kinda Bill Clinton
@@mikeciul8599but he did this at 40 and 60 years old :/ he was fully aware
@@mikeciul8599 Well said.
When I heard this news break, I literally said "finally", because as a spec writer who is friends with many people in the workshop scene, I knew that Clarion (the writing workshop that Gaiman had been an instructor for and also promotes) has a "Gaiman Rule". The rule is "instructors are not allowed to sleep with the students". I heard multiple people who attend writing conventions urge each other away from interaction with Gaiman outside of official events. I know that for over a decade, people have been too afraid to talk about negative interactions with him in public, which I think is why this ended up on Tortoise Media and not a venue that could actually burn social capital by speaking out against him. I share this for people who don't have access to the behind the scenes of publishing like I do-- people have been giving Gaiman a pass for a long time, and I think we need to accept that this is who he is. This isn't from out of nowhere among people who are supposed to be his colleagues and peers.
With these types of allegations there is rarely smoke without a fire somewhere. We have only recently started to hold men like Gaiman accountable for their shitty behavior. I think the scope of this is so much large than we think.
This kind of thing seems to happen a lot in various industries sadly. An open secret of an abusive person who has too much power to face real consequences
Good dear heavens. I can't even... my goodness.
When I heard the allegations about him, I thought to myself well that figures. I felt the same way about joss whedon. Their was just something fake about them to me. I listened to the podcast around the 4th of July weekend and even I felt it was weirdly conservative. The tone, not the allegations which I feel are credible. Vera did a great job breaking it down.
I’ve heard this(Clarion ‘Gaiman Rule’) elsewhere as well. As an avid reader I’m jealous of your knowledge of the pub world!
As a Pro Dominatrix in training, I fucking HATE a lot of this. Like, so much of this is just WRONG on how to play. It just drips with "i read 50 shades and i know what i am doing"
Oh no. Are people still doing that? I was hoping since it seemed to have died down people were using those books/movies less for examples.
@Avrysatos ehh sadly some people still have those ideas and haven't actually talked to people in kink spaces.
Congrats on your training
@@rudeboyjohn3483 Thank you
a pro dominatrix???
I'm too old to worship people the way I did twenty or thirty years ago, but this still makes me sad. I just discovered Good Omens in the past year, which has the most touching relationship I've seen in decades (Crowley and Aziraphale).
At least good omens is half written by someone else (who as far as I know never did anything like this)
@talonhammer After hearing these allegations, my kneejerk response is to attribute Aziraphale and Crowley's relationship to Prachett, because I'm not sure Gaiman can relate to the truly selfless unconditional love they have for each other.
@@catfancier270 As far as I know from interviews I've watched: When Gaiman first came up with the concept and start of Good Omens, Aziraphale and Crowley were one character. Prachett then suggested sort of splitting the main character into two. The story and relationship was then developed gradually by both of them as far as I understood. But that's info I got from Gaiman interviews. Don't know how Prachett himself would've thought about it.
Terry Pratchett is half author of the book, so I'm far less concerned about the entirety of that story. I do love Sandman, and honestly, Gaiman is too close to Morpheus in being kind of cold and not great with interacting with humanity. It seems he wrote a lot of his angst and mistakes into the character of Dream
@@Elenuaygod they used to be one character? Geez no wonder they're gay it's inevitable lol
I also have the urge to credit most of it to Pratchett but I haven't read but like 2 other books by Gaiman so idk
Person from Aotearoa New Zealand here. As the employer, what Gaiman did was absolutely illegal (if the situation was non-consensual). Workplace dating or sexual relationships here are fine, BUT the moment any element of coercion or harassment comes in - we have laws against that. In fact, all ANZ employers are required by law to ensure that workplace harassment doesn't happen. And the definition is based on the recipient's experience, not the boss/harasser ("It does not matter what the person whose conduct is in question believed about their behaviour. The key question is whether the conduct was offensive or unwanted and detrimental to the person receiving the conduct.")
Also, I was marching in Reclaim the Streets marches 40 years ago (and it was a recycled activity then!) and the chant was "However I dress, wherever I go, yes means yes, and no means no." So the 'consent is a hard yes' talked about here has always been out there, and *still* isn't making a big enough dent in the overarching culture. Maybe one day, thanks to videos like this one. Cheers!
This. I am tired of "they didn't understand consent like we do now" is garbage.
I point to Billy Idol "Rebel Yell" as 80s enthusiastic consent
I very much did not look at the runtime when I clicked on this, so we had the exact same reaction when you put a timecode up on the screen.
Now THAT’S funny.
Same
To anyone who says "consent isn't sexy", I raise you *Promiscuous* by Nelly Furtado.
I haven't played Baldur's Gate 3, but I've been told Karlach's enthusiastic consent is great.
OH MY GOD THANK YOU! It does this old heart good to see a Nelly Furtado reference in the wild ❤
I'll see your Nelly Furtado, and raise you one...oh wait, there is no rising higher than her
Just because you don't find consent sexy doesn't mean you have to actually irl assault someone. You could easily roleplay a scenario instead.
@@EntertheGam3 What you have to raise is your manos into the aire!
Regarding the "Master" thing: While I agree the title is fairly standard in consensual BDSM relationships, it is a title that is either earned or negotiated. Approaching someone you just met in the nude, crowding their personal space, and saying "call me Master" is not how any of this should work.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the outlet used the title to invoke an overall shame and even revulsion (which is absolutely wrong, and additionally biases the listener). In the specific instance outlined above, though, a bit of revulsion might be warranted.
It’s revulsion I’ll accept from people who actually understand the issue (as you’ve demonstrated you have). Not from these dinguses.
@@CouncilofGeeks Absolutely fair. People who do what this outlet seems to be doing (using other's biases to twist and form a narrative) deserve very little by way of charitable interpretation. I do hope I didn't overstep with my original comment.
I also want to add (and this definitely should have been in the original comment) that the video was very informative, and does a wonderful job of laying out the situation. Thank you for putting in the time.
Here's hoping you're able to talk about something considerably more lighthearted and positive in the near future.
@@cradlechickSo far the outlet deserves all scrutiny, just that the actual victims story is solid
@@marocat4749 I never meant to imply otherwise, and apologize if it came across that way. I’m with (I think) many others who support the victims while acknowledging this outlet did very little to give their stories the consideration and respect they deserve.
By muddying the waters the way they have with their questionable sources and reporting, not to mention the addition of a paywall for their “exclusive” coverage, the victims’ accounts are now being put through even more unnecessary scrutiny than they otherwise would have.
The problem is that this sounds like someone who has no idea how BDSM works, wrote about what they thought could go wrong, because they have no idea. It's not a "let's start and see what happens" secenario and I'll tell you what I don't like once we get there. These things are / should all be talked about upfront.
Sounds more like someone got their ideas from the sh*** show that was 50 shades.
You should be very, very proud of this video, because it's a 2-hour masterclass in media literacy, which is more than just being able to look at a piece of fiction and nod wisely and be all like "yes, thing bad". You have actually analysed the method of delivery of these women's experiences--Tortoise and the podcast itself, their framing and biases, and the ways they guide their audience along (with the specific example of how much time you spent hammering on the "people say" nonsense they pulled). Brava.
Initiating a sexual relationship with an employee is pretty sleazy, the power dynamic makes genuine consent impossible.
Especially an employee you just hired.
Totally
This. Speaking as someone who’s had an employer pursue a s*dual relationship with me, it’s not at all okay. A “I’m attracted to you and I’m interested in a relationship with you when you’re no longer my employee” is one thing. Anything beyond that is entirely unacceptable, abusive, and predatory.
Yep. You can't have a consensual relationship with your employee. It's that simple.
And his exwifes " urg, the tenth to " which i give her the benefit she was frustrated there , doesnt do him.any favours, maybe they talked about harassment , but yeah the speazy pattern definitly existed, and complains,
Its believable , and i give his exwife here she frustated mindset not really paying attention
Another reason why Gaiman may not have posted an explicit defense is that he has a larger platform than any of the accusers or of Tortoise Media. If he says anything he amplifies the allegations.
From a PR perspective, being silent on the topic in public forums is in his best interest.
The Streisand effect. I actually hadn't thought of that and I bet you're right.
The problem with the Lynch-Mob mentality & Trial By Media / Social Media / Internet that Tortise "Media" is clearly trying to gin up their "story" with is that the accusers are never called to provide proof of their allegations & are free to fling shit while at the same time the targets are always on the defensive & any evidence that proves the latter's version of events is dismissed out of hand & any form of self-preservation activity is immediately reverse-engineered into collusion & cover-up & just another part of the overall conspiracy.
I.E. - There's wild speculation on certain Reddit threads pillorying Michael Sheen & David Tennant for staying mum on the subject. I suspect that part of the silence is mostly not giving a bullshit non-issue credibility by commenting on it, but I'm wondering if MS isn't also taking a page out of DT's book, who already knows what it's like to be subjected to an online pillorying after JK Rowling painted a target on his back & set loose Posie Parker's Mumsnet-Cult attack dogs on him after DT came out as a Trans Ally.
I'm from the UK, and sex and kink are not at all out in the public, even at pride events. and the police do a piss poor job at investigating sex crimes. the fact that under the Tories we had MPs in the House of Parliament be accused of SA and nothing happened. and in my opinion, Neil Gaiman is, at best, bad at kink. and for me with the resources he has, he has no excuse to be.
Well, at least in the case that happened over 20 years ago, he...possibly didn't. I was there, Gandalf, in the olden days of the internet.
*And even all the online and written-on-paper resources can't replace an IRL kink community.* This is what I *always* tell kink-curious people, go find people in your area to hang out with and talk about stuff. Let them teach you. If you wouldn't go skiing in the Alps without an instructor, don't fucking start a BDSM relationship without mentors. It's...basically the same thing; it's all about minimizing risk to yourself and others.
And Gaiman probably didn't feel comfortable joining such a group because of his celebrity status.
I think he was ignorant and irresponsible rather than actively malicious - but still absolutely responsible for a lot of harm.
As a dom I know once said, "I don't need to apply every skill I have, but I need to be skilled in everything I apply."
No. No th$king no! There shouldn't be "KINK" for f%ck your worker! And so much younger that you! NO. STOP MAKING GROOMING 'KINK'.
@@TheSleepyowlet Are you excusing the crime he committed just because he didn't know how to be a proper dom?
Jesus.
@@eveleene3613 No? Learn to read. I literally wrote that he's responsible.
@@eveleene3613 i think youre confusing excusing and explaining. The Case Made in the Post is that possibly He didnt actually have the resources Hes assumed to have now and thus His actions are possibly based in irresponsible Lack of education rather than openly malicious intent. There is a difference between the two, and that difference is important, because knowing how or why sth happened can teach us how to prevent something similar Happening again.
However, He is still responsible - because motivations or reasons do Not Change the Outcome. Thats why it's an explanation, Not an excuse. Noone Said to Cut him some slack, but exploring reasons why gaiman acted the way He did ARE important
I was waiting for someone I trust to cover this in depth, because a lot around the way the allegations were put out left me uneasy and confused. You are a legend. This video is exactly what I needed, thank you.
I rambled about all this on a Twitch stream recently, focusing on the nuance of "he is doing bad kink and bad consent but also the journalists seem to be chasing a narrative and on the part of one may be politically motivated" but hotdamn did you lay it all out so perfectly and clearly here. Way more organized than my frustrated ramblings. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for giving this story this treatment.
"bad consent" you mean there was a lack of consent.....there's a word for that...
Your frustration over the lack of source for the Gaiman quotes reminded me of an article I read 2 or 3 years ago about the prevalence of uncredited ghost writers in movie scores. Large parts of it was heavily focused on the amount of musicians that have written uncredited cues for scores written by Hans Zimmer. This included a really damning quote from him on the subject only to say a few paragraphs later that Hans Zimmer was unavailable for comment. I found my self screaming "well where did you get Hans Zimmer's damning quote from then?"
This was especially frustrating as most of the discussion of the article on social media was focused on that quote but nobody was pointing out there was no source for the quote.
It was probably something he'd said in the past (maybe?) but the fact they didn't specify is shoddy journalism.
@@gracehetfield5331That was my immediate thought too.
"THEN WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP??" hahahaha exactly what I said to myself at that moment. I love you, Vera!!! your explanation about this - at what is known atm - is great.
Bringing something up by saying you won't is a standard debate tactic.
Haven't finished the video yet, but I'm guessing this is about how the podcast spent one of its four episodes talking about Gaiman's father for seemingly no reason whatsoever? God, it was a weird podcast to listen to.
That was where I quit the podcast. It felt too much like a Netflix true crime documentary. I honestly think it's doing a huge disservice to these women because the 4 hour run-time has put a lot of people off listening to it and the story hasn't actually got much traction in MSM.
So I think this is a prime example of two things can be true at once. These women were exploited for a transphobic agenda but the nanny allegation does have a police report (Rolling Stone did an investigation). Also what Amanda Palmer, who has a ton of her own issues but has always been very emotionally open and revealing in her art, details in the lyrics of her song "Whakanewha" (named for a park in NZ and released 6 months ago) is pretty damning.
Transphobes are horrible and want to hurt anyone they deem as trans positive. But I also believe that men who get put on pedestals, especially ones who get glorified for being emotional feminist-y artists, can abuse their power and have it excused or overlooked due to fandom.
Yes they CAN be. Does not mean they ARE. Not one person here knows whether they are or not. And considering how many projects Gaiman has going on atm and how many of people involved are young, trans, LGBTQ and none have said a thing nor left any projects that speaks against your last part of speculation. As a cis gay male CSA survivor I also find myself frustrated once again having to remind some people women do the same things as men if they're fked up like that. All that stuff about glorification etc is just fluff. I don't believe the majority of people glorify a person who is decent nor worship them in any way. It's good that they get recognized for it tho, since we are in quite bad situation right now especially in UK and Nordic Europe. Comes off like a clickbait video "we need to stop worshipping this and that" when most of us don't even do that. Instead we should now come up with our own wild speculation based on vibes? No thanks. I'll stick to reality. Vibes mean absolutely nothing, especially when you're accusing someone of something. And they definitely shouldn't be the base for the accusations.
@@twistedelegance_ All anyone here is doing is speculating and in this case? I believe the victim. There is a police report and he admits he had relationships with both women which shows, at minimum, he engaged with extreme age gap relationships with the one relationship being with an employee on top of it. As a former nanny I can attest to how messed up that is due to the dynamic and how it can also mess with the child involved. I have no respect for this man anymore regardless of what his artistic works mean to me.
Also, I never said women don't commit these kinds of abuses, and they certainly can and do, but the list of men who get protected and don't face much consequence at all due to the celebrity factor is far longer. We also have a long history of this sort of thing in art/media (Whedon, Allen, Polanski, Landis, it goes on). That's simply due to patriarchy.
@@chaoscryptid4092 that's fine but age gap is not an issue to me at all, if both are adults. She was 21 at the time they started to have any kind of intimacy as pointed out in the video. (Saying this as a married gay man) Yes, I know many others think otherwise and that's fine. We can agree to disagree . But it doesn't make him a monster nor should he be "canceled" over it. Your response is vastly different from what you originally commented. As for the list, the issue is that the mainstream media won't talk about let alone accept things happen other way as well. The list is in no way accurate since most victims (including myself) never even come out let alone seek justice, no matter the gender.
@@twistedelegance_Am I worried about significant age gap between two adults for something like a one night stand? Not especially without an additional red flag. For an ongoing relationship, I’m definitely side-eyeing it when the younger person is college age. Anything involving an employer/employee “relationship”, though, that I have a HUGE problem with. That inherently lacks valid consent.
Age gaps are a problem because of power dynamics, and the issue of power dynamics is a problem with relationships between an employer and an employee and between a famous person and a fan.
I just said “NOOOO” out loud because neil gaiman is involved in so many projects that shaped who i am
Sameeeee. I knew about this like five days before. Same reaction. I don't know what to believe and I tried too look it up and see whats's going on. But I also saw that the source is apparengly a podcast that wasn't really known before all this, so... I kinda have my doubts. I really want to know what Vera is about to say and what did she find that I couldn't.
The same. And I am very glad, that from the current perspective it looks like Gaiman is at worst, not as good in communicating and ensuring consent as he should be especcially as the dominant, active part in a relationship. Which is worthy of criticism, but does not make him an immoral person, just a flawed one, that needs to learn to do better. And hopefully does.
I hope that he deals with that in a healthy way
@@hannajung7512 The age gaps and clear power dynamic issues do make him, at the least, an unethical person, if not an immoral one.
@@KayleighBourquinthat was one of my main take aways when I read it. Aside from shock and being quite upset. Even if it was consensual, he still is a 60+ man who went after a girl in her very early 20s, which is just very yuck.
@@dustinakadustinhmm, once men get beyond 60 the balance between who is exploiting who shifts, at 70/80, with the shift in the mans cognitive function the woman becomes the one doing the exploiting.
It's possible that this is a consent accident, where Gaiman thought consent was given when it wasn't. But as Vera rightly said, this isn't a whole lot better and is still a huge problem that he needs to address and take responsibility for.
A clearer understanding of active consent and communication is critical to ANY relationship, but especially BDSM, as Vera rightly pointed out.
If I'm famous and rich and about 40 years older than someone who's basically my employee, I'd better be very careful about consent.
@@Sarah-oj7bh Agreed
I think even with a huge benefit of the doubt, the best we can say is that he was not being deliberately evil. That doesn't change the fact that he was being evil. Ignorance and ego are no excuse for the harm caused.
@@evapadilla8342 Agreed :)
On one hand, we all had to be taught consent at one point.
On the other, ignorance of the law doesn't absolve you fron breaking it.
Do I want the allegations to be true? Of course not, primarily because I don’t want anyone to have gone through even the slightest amount of that trauma. Do I think there’s something there? Probably. Whether it’s everything that Tortoise Media claims, I don’t know but it sounds like at least something inappropriate happened, even if that’s initiating a relationship with an employee which should never, ever, EVER happen and that should be a commonly accepted baseline standard by 2024. And I also think the victims are being exploited. Do I think it’s odd that only Tortoise Media is reporting on the allegations? Absolutely. I want to know why no other, actually known sources are reporting on the allegations eventually. I want to know that the alleged victims are being treated with dignity by reporters, not being used for an agenda. Everything, absolutely everything, about this situation feels so many levels of wrong, and not in a “the victims are lying” way.
Edit: Also, yes, consent is INHERENTLY sexy. And, dammit, Vera, that demonstration didn’t need to be THAT s*xy!
Im actually close friends with one of the victims. Like many my instinctive first thought was, "No, Neil, not you too!" But it's true. He's paid money to silence these women; he knows what he's done is wrong (to put it mildly), and is happy to cover the situation up. I truly feel for all the fans who've had the rug pulled out from under them, here, but the fact remains that this man simply isn’t the nice guy he presents himself as being. Bravo to these women for coming forward (and there are more who have done so, since this video was released), and please, please spread the word--Gaiman's PR firm is doing a depressingly good job of quashing this story.
Yeah, it's the fact of the podcast's previous views and that the story broke the day after the casting of a trans actress as an important trans character in 'Sandman' Season Two that is my main quibble with this whole thing. I'm not saying I think the allegations are untrue. I'm just saying the timing is very interesting.
It feels like they wouldn't have said a thing if he wasn't opposed to their gender critical ideology, the way they ignore all the male predators who are on their side or not publicly trans-supportive. JKR would probably have sent him flowers if he'd come out as transphobic.
There are other quibbles. All the supposed evidence is locked behind a paywall, if it's as true as they claim, wouldn't it be best for all to make it all public? I don't know about their previous views, never heard of them until this week but the timing does seem off and in a way that would benefit them the most. It's also worth noting that the person who broke these allegations to Tortoise is Rachel Johnson, the sister of former UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. She is a confirmed liar and has defended her brother, despite all the proof against him. Gaiman is a long term and outspoken critic of Boris and the Tories, so it's not like Rachel wouldn't have any bias against him.
I'm also not saying the allegations are untrue, just that there's a lot more to it all behind the scenes.
IM saying the allegations are untrue! This whole thing is TMZ BULLSHIT
This is also some of my thoughts. I am not so willing to separate the stories from the outlet. I think it would be underestimating the women in question. I am positive they knew what they signed up for and who these people (journos) were. To me the agenda against Gaiman is very clear. Does that mean there was no power imbalance? No. But it also doesn't mean Neil should be compared to Rowling or "canceled". We're all sh*tty people and do bad things, not all of them even close to equal. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to take a look in the mirror cause none of us are pure. How we handle the aftermath and grow from it is what defines our character. What resonates me with Council of Geeks is the growth she has shown as a person herself. For example when they mentioned they had a main character syndrome at one point in their live I could relate, and I also do not look at that time of my life with kindness. But I've moved on and become a better person since then. But neither do I keep punishing myself for that time as I've shown growth and become better. Sorry I'm rambling as always.
That is, of course, a reason to distrust the outlet, but not one to disbelieve the victims. Let us not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater!
As a woman I REALLY love it when a man tells me what ideas I can have or not. And I am particularly fond of those men then making laws based on their idea of what I am able think...
Like wtf?! I can see how a certain group of feminist women are convinced, that BDSM is a continuation of patriarchal abuse patterns and thus think consent is notbä possible. I think they are wrong, but I understand their persoective.
But having an elderly man condescent on me by telling me, that my submissive desires are basically actually not my idea but that of some man who forced them on me by deception is just infuriating.
@@hannajung7512 This is also a massive problem in gay communities. I can't even count the times I've been with an older man when I was younger and I was being forced to do things I didn't want to do because I knew they would hurt me in the long run as my disability makes my body somewhat fragile, but at that moment I had signed up for a Master/Slave session and didn't think I could say no. I did say this isn't a good idea several times but it was always disregarded. There are contracts available for free at several bdsm websites where both the slave and the master fill out everything they consent to, what they do not and how many times the contract will be renewed in a year with changes. I suggest anyone into kinks prints out these contracts and use them asap.
I mean, those feminists are wrong because they're seeing BDSM through patriarchal lenses when BDSM is fundamentally queer. Cis and straight people who get into BDSM don't get its history and how much important consent is, and while I get their perspective is heavily ignoring the queer history of BDSM. That's why they're wrong because kink is queer, is people not understanding how the whole subculture started.
These are men that ignoring what BDSM truly is, ignoring how much queerness is in it and using it as a way to justify treating women when again, BDSM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PATRIARCHY BECAUSE IT WAS INVITED BY GAY MEN, yes gay men can be misogynistic but BDSM is also something queer women participate in, those feminists are wrong because they don't research into BDSM and its culture
Thank you for saying this so I didn't have to
*Nostalgia Critic opening music plays*
Yes wanting to be abused by a man is not feminist. You can do what you want but it can be judged. Society totally has nothing to do with why a woman would agree to be degraded by a man.
@@ittymushroom Cool. How does your "wanting to be degraded is not feminist [and implicitly antifeminist]" position account for lesbian kinksters?
Hot take, something can be unacceptable, morally wrong, even traumatic, while also not being illegal, or even 'should' be illegal. The victims trauma is valid either way, but giving law enforcement more specific power to regulate these sorts of things is dangerous. Adults are allowed to make choices they regret, that an integral part of autonomy, we don't need authorities 'protecting us from ourselves'
Right. Morally/ethically wrong doesn’t mean it’s legally actionable.
I agree. That's how I feel about detransitioners; it truly sucks that they have regrets, but that's the price of freedom! We should be able to do things we regret, even things that may cause us harm. My sovereignty over my body is complete.
I have a few points: 1) I've listened to a lot of true crime podcasts and they always cite their sources and how they found information and will acknowledge if someone wants to stay anonymous. This statement applies to legitimate podcasts i.e. in the crime sphere to educate, bring awareness, and make a difference vs in it just for internet fame, gossip, and spectacle. 2) As for the allegations, even the best case scenario absolutely disgusts and disappoints me, I know people can be capable of both terrible and good things, but it's hard to absorb yet another public figure abusing their power in such a sleazy manner. My heart goes out to every woman that he's harmed whether ignorantly or on purpose.
Yeah, that's where I stand on it. Even the best case scenario looks bad. I find it weird that no other media sources have done an investigation on this other than to report on the original story/podcast. That said, it's possible the victims don't want to relive all of that again.
This reminds me that I want to watch Vera's other video about what to do with the work of such creators because I have to find it.
I think Neil having Scarlet talk to the therapist is incredibly underhanded for exactly the reason you mentioned. If her comments to the therapist can be brought up in a legal context, then it can bolster Neil's claims that everything was above board. I really can't rationalize him doing that for any other reason, especially considering that therapists are meant to be able to compartmentalize everything from disturbing intrusive thoughts to someone confessing outright abusive behavior.
I do think there's plenty to criticize this podcast for from a kink, poly and otherwise queer perspective. But I do continue to feel a bit nauseated when the focus of this discussion seems more heavily weighted toward the wrongs of this podcast as opposed to Gaiman's actions. I've said this elsewhere many times, but our "best case scenario" here is still an older, wealthier, more powerful man using his position to pressure young women into sex. I continue to wish this story had been picked up by any other outlet at this point, as the Tortoise connection has seemingly muddied the waters of the actual issue here.
@@martymcflown3707 There was never any discussion of legal case, and even now there's a very low chance of anyone actually going that far. Therapists have many patients, and some of them know each other. It is the therapist's job not to discuss these things with a patient. While what you say can be true, it can also be the case that since Neil already offered to pay for her 6 months rent he figured he'd also pay for the therapy sessions. I have recommended my therapist to many people, including my family members and husband. I don't have an upper hand by recommending a professional I go to. I have absolutely no power over her job, as a patient.
Both very good points. I didn't know before this that if you have someone else talk to your therapist that what they say doesn't have to be kept confidential
I actually can think of a good reason to have someone you're in conflict with speak to your therapist. I know a few people who have had meditated sessions and even separate sessions with one person's therapist so that the therapist can better understand what's going on and do a better job helping. I am not necessarily saying that's what was happening or the reason, but I think people don't always know that this is a done thing, ESPECIALLY with relationships that are romantic/sexual but are not traditional. Everyone knows about couples counseling, but there are gradations between one on one up to full blown couples therapy.
@@makingpixierose I don't believe there was any conflict at the time.
@@milkymoonbeamI didn't know that either. 😮 I guess it makes sense because they don't have a therapeutic relationship, but that's still kind of wild to me.
I was very shocked when this story came out, I've spent hours just reading about it and listening to the podcast. I was a recent fan of Neil Gaiman, but I had quickly come to really respect him. I enjoyed his Tumblr presence, had recently read Good Omens and was looking forward to reading more of his books and watching the Good Omens series. So I was in disbelief. Never to the point of genuinely not believing the women, but my mind definitely had trouble accepting it.
I understand why some are more suspicious, Tortoise Media certainly doesn't have the best reputation and the podcast did feel off at times, and I don't want to believe it either, but I very much doubt they were completely making it up. But to appease the suspicions, let's take only what Neil Gaiman himself said happened. At 61, he hired a 21-year-old live-in nanny, and on her first day, hours after they met, they shared a bath where they kissed and cuddled. Granted, it's the podcast that said Gaiman said this, so they may have twisted his words in some way, but I don't see how you un-twist this into something that's okay. The power dynamics are just too great and he should know that. And the actual allegations are much worse.
I don't know if you cover this, but I've seen a lot of people (admittedly anonymously on reddit) in the comic book / publishing scene say he's had a reputation for being sleazy around young female fans as far back as the 90s, including at least one person who talked about it months before the allegations came out, so that unfortunately also lends credit to the allegations. It's sad that this reputation wasn't more widespread, but alas. Writing this out was helpful in putting my thoughts in order, thanks for covering this, I look forward (in a weird way) to watching the video. (For future reference, this comment was left before the video's premier.)
Exactly this. I firmly believe that we should listen to victims, but even if Neil's version of events is 100% the truth he's still a creep. Taking a bath with a 20 year old girl under your employment, are you kidding me. I'm so disappointed in him
I will say he came to my school when I was in college and had weird vibes. I kinda stopped reading so much of his stuff at that point. So when the story came out I kinda shrugged cuz honestly it made sense to me.
@@LuckyAthediawhat did he do at your school that gave you weird vibes?
@@kaitlyn1689 Young woman, not young girl. She was 20 years old at the time, so definitely not a girl. I'm not trying to downplay anything you say but in these situations, accuracy is important and 'girl' has strong implications of someone younger, or even underage. :-)
Absolutely this, even if it was consensual, he still went after a 21 year old and he's in in 60s, which is just so strange.
I love it so much that The Society (tm) went from "No means no" to "enthusiastically consenting". I am a Fangirl (tm), so I read A LOT OF FANFIC. And I love the shift to enthusiastic consent. It is just so... lovely! And I agree with Vera wholeheartedly: If you cannot make consent sexy, THAT IS A SKILL ISSUE! BE BETTER!
looks like there's a third victim that's come forward about this (in the "am i broken: survivor stories" podcast on spotify). also was in her early 20s, and took place between scarlett and k's situations. this podcast treated the victim's story a lot more sensitively and didn't inject its own problematic views around sex or sensationalized it. the chances that we can take neil on his word are pretty low at this point.
Also the podcast is done by a non-binary person, so idiots can't handwave the story as "coming from a TERF podcast" anymore. we can just chalk everyone who claimed that as a rape apologist.
This was horrendous to listen to. Honestly, he can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned.
This situation is very upsetting overall, I have a lot of complicated feeling about it. I searched for a bit after the story came out, and there seem to be a lot of sketchy details, like they refusing to show some evidence despite saying that they had it, but also the women who spoke up deserve to be heard and supported without condemning Gaiman yet, since the truth still has to come out before we do any judgement on anyone.
I've heard they also have evidence, texts etc, that back up Gaiman's version and that is some of the material they refuse to release. Rachel Johnson, the woman that broke the story to Tortoise, also has very good reasons to be hugely biased against Gaiman. He's a very outspoken critic of her brother, Boris (the former PM) and she has openly lied to defend her brother in the past.
I really hope these allegations aren't true but I agree that all sides need to be heard, without the biased parties involved, before any real judgement can be made. Unfortunately, that never happens and it's likely too late here as well.
There can be legal reasons why the evidence cannot be shown. Privacy laws, or laws about ongoing investigations can create situations in which a victim has all the evidence but is at the moment not free to make them public until there is a legal decission on the case and the evidence is made public via the court files after being deemed admissable.
@@hannajung7512 If there are legal reasons why it can't be showm they they shouldn't claim it exists. A claim without evidence to back it up is a baseless claim of no merit. Also, any legal situations would also prevent them from revealing the stuff against Gaiman, yet they are quite happy to do that.
@@Elwaves2925that argument is bollocks, if it can't be released for legal reasons, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I am not taking sides here, you just aren't making sense, its like you didnt understand what you are responding to.
Now, I'll give you a more valid response, if the evidence is part of an ongoing investigation by police then NO, IT SHOULD NOT BE PUBLICLY RELEASED AS IT COULD BIAS A TRIAL
But, you would then say "we have evidence, it can't be released publicly as it part of a ongoing investigation.
The evidence likely is NOT part of an ongoing investigation and likely is not very compelling, so no one would turn on Gaiman if they heard it, that's likely why they don't release it. But it exists.
So, despite me being broadly on the same side as you, I find your response weird.
A non sequitur.
@@hannajung7512I know what you mean, and I think that in that case they should have said “we have evidence but we can’t show it because our lawyers advised us not to” or “because it’s being investigated”. Saying that you have evidence but you’re not going to show it without a good reason it’s weird and suspicious. I’m not going to say that it doesn’t exist, maybe it does, but we can’t know for sure because we don’t have any evidence that it exists and we have to take their word as the truth.
I'm a Kiwi, so if anyone has any questions about NZ culture, law and society etc. to understand the context better, I'll be happy to answer to the best of my ability.
Do you think it’s significant that Neil is a Scientologist?
@@kerlygerl I don't know, Scientology isn't a big thing in NZ and he is British. Religion as a whole doesn't have the same significance in NZ as a whole compared to the US, for example, it is hard to get any position in the US government if you're not Christian but (at least since 1980 idk exactly when) every prime minster has identified as agnostic and being religious is seen as a negative, with our current prime minster being the first open Christian to hold that office (since idk when) but he promised to not bring religion into office. As far as I know, this is true in the UK too, so being a Scientologist is a huge red flag there more so than in the US if I had to guess.
@@plasmktan Scientologists are known in the US to be an abusive cult. I refuse to call it a religion. It brainwashes people and abuses initiates. It's a terrible cult that shouldn't exist. I wouldn't put it past Gaiman if he IS a scientologist to do some shady things. The main scientologist celeb at the moment is Tom Cruise. That is the cult's poster boy.
@@plasmktan from what i know, he once [indirectly] insulted one of his siblings in the 'dedication' bit of his book/story. i later looked that sibling up and found that they were a scientologist...
@@plasmktan Read about the PM on wikipedia, what a twat! (idk about how good he actually is in relation to being a pm, like economics and all that, but his personal view are interesting to say the least)
"He hasn't said a dang thing" Gaiman is typically pretty active on Tumblr, interacting with fans and other authors, but since this came out he's disappeared entirely. He's definitely gone to ground, which...yeah. Disappointing.
Edit: for clarity I'm not saying he should say something, the Disappointment is over the whole thing not specifically him being incommunicado
Obviously he wouldn't say anything, which does add to the weirdness of "Gaiman's account", because why would he say anything to anyone about this?
::shrug::
To be fair, these are very serious allegations and if I was accused and innocent (personally I believe the allegations about him) I would not speak publicly until I had consulted my lawyer and gotten the go ahead.
It could also be a sign of legal counsel saying they shouldn't speak on it.
regardless of the validity or the truthfulness of these women's statements, it is very normal for a public figure who is publicly accused of anything to go radio silent while working with their lawyers, usually demanded *by* the lawyers to prevent their client from saying something stupid
@@MyName9387-b8e
It's always wiser to say nothing.
Because the story was presented in a stupid podcast it will probably be forgotten rather quickly.
@@axepuff411
Always listen to your lawyers.
They generally know what's what.
"No one will consent to degradation" 😂😂 living in this world and having to work for some people is far more degrading than anything that can happened in a BDSM session... And we agree to that everyday 🙄
OMG thank you!
Go tk work as a sex worker and perform super degrading acts because you need the money? It’s woke to support that.
Have a boyfriend that’s 10 years older that you love? That’s problematic and the age gap alone makes you incapable of consent.
I really think that some of these conversations have gotten so strident and extreme.
I think too much internet is partially to blame.
@@CarlyonProductionnot quite sure if you are referring to my comment specifically or just in general. I was pointing up that we do a lot in capitalism that we wouldn't do if we had the choice. I wasn't talking about this cases in particular, I have no authority whatsoever to judge this situation or a similar one. I do believe that sex work is an option as any other in work options, as long as you are legally capable of making such a choice. As I said in the original comment we do a lot of degrading things in this life for a piece of bread and that's something that people intentionally forgets when sex work is in the center of the discussion, the problem is that we HAVE to degrade our self to be able to exist in this world not that our genitalia is involved in the matter.
@@bilemcin I don’t disagree with anything you said at all. I was just using the sex work example in a similar sense - we are obsessed with policing interpersonal relationships and yet we say very little about people being exploited by the market.
It always blows my mind to see people on the left doing this!
Yeah, actually the entire premise of this world seems to be for people to consent to shit that they really shouldn't through a combination of lying, brainwashing, training in school, social pressure and threats from the authorities that they will jail you for doing pretty much anything. This is why, I dunno, I often feel like a lot of kink and sex work is tainted because it's done in the context of a world wherein people are deprived of pretty much all agency by the poverty that is forced upon them (quite artificially). But yeah, thanks for that comment. "consensual degradation" is exactly what is happening in society, except I dont' think it is really consensual.
I'd never been to this channel before and I was so afraid I was going to click on this video and find some misogynistic bullshit... I didn't. I found a very interesting, nuanced deep look into a very complex thing. I'm not even half way through the video yet, but I'm pleased that RUclips decided to recommend this to me.
That was the best example of making consent sexy i've ever seen.
Yes! That was my favourite bit! Excellent modelling, thank you Vera! ❤
Right?? I was ready to roll over and beg to have all sorts of things done to me. LOL A+++ modeling!
I was playing a game and I had to stop. My jaw DROPPED like I’m not usually easy to impress but she really did that 😳😳😳
Even I who’s sex-neutral to completely sex-averse asexual have to admit Vera’s example was sexy af.
@@Acidfrog475 that is some high praise! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Came for Neil Gaiman, stayed for the stylish critical thinking.
New subscribe
Appreciate your takes
Thank you Vera for analysing this upsetting situation so thoroughly.
I'm heartened to see that you've come to the same conclusions as I did, after researching both the allegations made in this messy feckin podcast, and the pre-existence of rumours of messy feckin behaviour by Gaiman in the past.
It's a sadly way too common thing that people into kink don't learn the ways to do it safely and consensually before diving into it.
In his *multiple layers* of positions of power over these young women, he had so much *more* responsibility to thoroughly learn the right and wrong ways of practising kink properly, and cleave carefully to the *right* ways...
Even in the 'best' (most generous to gaiman) versions of what happened with scarlett and k, he totally failed to act in Risk Aware, Safe and Consensual ways.
And that was his choice, to prioritise his own desires over their safety.
So dishonourable.
So dsappointing.
So infuriating how many are leaping to defend him, like 🤦🏻 Can't they see how that just continues to perpetuate the culture of normalised misogyny, or do they actually want that?
It also sounds to me, from listening to AFP's recent art, that she's processing her anger at what he's done, and might still be doing, too... That's just my own speculation though 🤷🏻♂️
TLDR: good people do bad things. Culturally, we've got a long way to go in learning how to handle that truth 😢
@@meala23I'm not even sure he's a good person with all this, and I absolutely love Good Omens and The Sandman.
Well yeah of course bad people do kink. Of course, abusive men especially love a way to abuse women "consensually".
@@MeredithDomzalskiyeah, I'm with you there!
Bad journalism is bad and does nobody any favours
This
I'd rather have good journalism of course, but I'm not sure the world would've been better if this podcast just didn't exist at all.
@@Huntracony My guess is that it would have come out sooner or later. Coming out this way probably does more harm than good.
@@chrispalmer7893 He's been getting away with it for at least 20 years, who's to say he wouldn't have gotten away with it for another 20? At least this gets some more people looking at this and doing good journalism, I hope.
@@Huntracony Funny how credible news orgs are treating this Bag of Smoke like it was radium...
"He should have known better" pretty much sums the whole thing up.
There's not saying no, actual consent & enthusiastic consent. Just because you consent to X once does not mean it is forever & for everything. You can revoke consent at any time. Your consent *can* be violated. Why is this so difficult to understand?
One of the two journalists, Rachel Johnson, really shouldn't be labelled as such, she is more often a political/social commentator, but in a world where two of her brothers are in politics, she wanted to carve her own path...
Which is why it's ironic that she chose the label "journalist" given that her brother, Boris started out in life as a "journalist" with a history of making stuff up...
The Johnson family are united in one aspect, they believe that they should be listened to on any (and every) topic.
Wait do you mean Boris Johnson the former (appallingly grifter) PM of the UK?
Hearing this news absolutely broke my heart. I have never met the man in person but his work meant so much to me. Until I heard the news two days ago I literally listened to Stardust and his other works every night to go to sleep (I am not resting well now) for years. Ocean at the End of the Lane helped me sort through a lot and made me feel understood and truly healed some wounds I wasn't willing to admit were there. Hell I got a signed copy of Ocean through a fellow fan after mine got stolen from the post BECAUSE he generously replied to me on Tumblr asking about options.
Gaiman always struck me as the type of person to support women or folks in situations he's being accused of. His work inspires me and I just...my heart is not strong enough to be let down by yet another artist/writer. I'm just not strong enough. This video was recommended to me and I am so grateful you posted it. I also did not want to believe it is true but I do. Period.
Asterisk, but two truths can exist at the same time with contradictory viewpoints and intent matters to me so for my personal fucking sanity I am clinging to the charitable view--until proven otherwise. Not to use this as an excuse but because his work means so much to me as someone who wants to write and is AuDHD hearing him say on Tumblr he considered Autism his superpower & his curse makes me inclined to think he just wasn't thinking about it to the extent he should and that whole suicide bit was an attempt to relate to her not to diminish even if it came off that way. (But yeah as you said the dynamics were totally fucked even taking the age gap out--they were all adults at least.) It's just the charitable view is I want to believe in it for my sake but he's probably never getting my money again anyway I just am not ready to toss books but it's not to say the pain and views aren't 100% accurate to those he hurt in the slightest. Really though my feelings don't matter I'm just rambling I feel crushed that my SpIn Author could get himself into a situation where things could be grey at all. It's so disappointing to me and I wish I could stop falling for artists where this is a thing?? It happened with GACKT too and I'm just like...could I find better people to admire please? Total aside. Sorry. It's weird that I have this as an instinctual type apparently. It just is heartbreaking and disappointing all around.
I just am left wanting to beg for it to not have been malicious because for whatever reason that matters to me. I hate this. Like, I wish that I could stop putting people on a pedestal because it hurts so much to learn people are human and flawed no matter what. I do it with everyone and I can't help it.
I'm not ready to engage with his work again it's too much right now and I will cry all over again but thank you for putting into words all the things I felt were off about the reporting. I couldn't access the podcast and had a weird feeling about how little was out there--something wasn't adding up. But yeah. At the very least...I hope all parties involved get the help they need to heal (& in Neil's case, to do better forevermore and learn & truly improve.)
Sorry this is all over the place I'm just so beyond disappointed and sad that people keep experiencing pain like this overall. I wish it were better.
I'm pretty devastated too.
I feel your pain. I have never been the type to be fangirling on anybody but Gaiman is pretty close. His words just pull on my heart strings in all the right places. I am in the middle of his Masterclass and at one point he says that the characters he wrote are a part of him. Everyone has a dark side and everyone makes mistakes. I choose to believe that he is a good man at heart and that, yes, what he allegedly did was wrong (waiting on more evidence but it does look pretty damning) but that he did not do it of out of malice. So if he owns his mistakes and legal punishment involved at least from my side there will be "forgiveness" (this sounds like too heavy a word since I am not the one mistreated but I can´t think of a better right now). I mean to say that the parts of him that grew to be the characters that resonate so deeply with me will still be the cherished characters and their stories for me. I am not going to toss out his books. Not sure if that helps you but I mean to say you are not alone.
That being said I explicitly don´t mean to say that he is not to be punished because he is a celebrity or anything. The victims deserve to be heard and to get justice - no question about that. I really dislike the trend of cancelling everything because someone did something wrong though, and sometimes even before anything has been proven beyond doubt. It is too easy nowadays to ruin someone just by claiming sa. Even when it gets proven that the allegation was wrong- the smut sticks to the person. And like I said earlier, everyone has a dark side. And no, I am not saying the women made anything up. I was merely explaining that I take things with a grain of salt.
PS: I should also mention I only stumbled across the allegations the other days and I just noticed this video is weeks old. Plus i was writing this post before I finished the video. I might change my view about him but I am still not going to damn his work.
@@moonsister5810 Not a whole lot more has come out save for more people speaking out but I am currently at the point where I do believe it. It still hurts so much and I have a ton of complicated feelings about it. I still wish it wasn't true but it genuinely sucks all around! I am so sorry either way you're just finding out. I wrote this very raw but yeah. I am glad it resonated either way!
As other comments have mentioned, Rachel Johnson writes for The Telegraph which is a successful mainstream newspaper. This story ended up on Tortoise because the Telegraph wouldn't touch it with a barge pole and Rachel wanted an outlet that reflected her position on kink shaming.
It seems fairly obvious, as Tortoise made it clear that they had no clarification or contact with Gaiman or his public relations managers, that the "positions" they describe are those reported by the women that they have interviewed.
The imbalances in the power dynamic are important but makes the options for sexual partners very limited and does not, imo, disallow consent. I'm not going to argue that the possibility of feeling forced isn't very likely, just that consent can still exist under those circumstances. I also think that confirming consent in every instance would be an ideal when there is such a significant power imbalance.
The "yes" needs to be really, very enthusiastic.
Thank you so much for taking the time to go through this with such care Vera. You're right, the women involved deserved so much better and it speaks volumes that you were able to approach this with 100 times the nuance that the so-called journalists did.
The "best case" scenario as you laid out is unethical enough to make me not want to engage with Gaiman or his work any more. I'm honestly heartbroken, as his books were so comforting to me when I was wading through the confusing and painful aftermath of my own sexual assault.
Your words at the end were so appreciated too. Thank you again, and hoping that you get to discuss something less soul destroying soon.
That podcast was such a wildly inappropriate means of delivering these accusations. It's dramatized/sensationalized just like a true crime podcast is directed for increased entertainment value. I do not know how to feel about the accusations. I cannot pass judgement on that. But that podcast... Just wow. That is not "news." I struggle to even call it journalism.
I forget who now, but someone on RUclips did a great video about rape and cited a study and in it women who initially said they hadn't been raped would then go on to describe a situation that was not consensual in their end and it changed my brain. We really do such a terrible job, as a society, of teaching young women and men what consent looks like and there's such a push for women to be passive that setting boundaries about sexual acts we don't want is incredibly difficult, especially if the other party is pressing the issue and not fostering communication.
Until I got into my current relationship with my girlfriend, I'd had several sexual partners but never had sex consensually. I knew in my gut that was wrong, but I didn't have the words to say it because I was raised to believe my body was for other people and if he enjoyed it and I cared about him, I would let him do what he wanted. If I had fun for even one bit, even if the rest was awful and I just wanted to be anywhere else doing anything else, that was how it was supposed to go. And that carried over even when I realized I'm a lesbian.
So, I feel for these gals who were young, inexperienced, and didn't feel like they could say anything.
It doesn't surprise me that Gaimen would plow through without getting enthusiastic consent and think everything was fine. I've known so many people like that. It's their responsibility to be a good partner and communicate properly and they should be held accountable, but they are working against their cultural upbringing. That's an everyone problem and we have to fix it
One of The Worst parts is this is probably going to be used by the Far Right to galvinise JK Rowling as the 'Respectable' Fantasy writer.
I mean, they already do; I don't think this'll change their stance at all
We can always go back to, ooh, Orson Scott Card. Or Asimov, he remains very popular despite the grossness. But gosh there are so many good writers, it's boggling how we seem as a culture to only want one
@@storageheater Scott Card isn't that great a writer.
@LeahLaushway They'll class this as Definitive proof.
@@nekusakura6748 and JK Rowling is?! what category are we trying to fill exactly lol
Tbh idea that someone didn't intent to do SA, but still traumatized people by practicing BDSM in incompetent and reckless manner with people totally new to it, is not much (if at all) better than intended predatorial behavior. Consent is not ass-cover, at least this is not consent primery function. In the end it should be about reasuring our partners mental and physical wellbeing. Here this mark was seriously missed.
A friend sent this to me, and when I saw how long it was.... I was planning on just skipping through and catching the highlights and the summary. But the more I watched, the more impressed I was with the approach to this truly awful developments with Gaiman. I can't tell you how much I appreciate how thoroughly you examined and critiqued the journalistic standards of the original outlet. Your final thoughts on the implications of the allegations were helpful, too. So happy to have had the opportunity to get your take on this. Huge thanks for taking the time to get into the weeds with this crisis and share your take. Much respect!
Respect for you doing this. I think no one wanted to read about this, or listen to the podcast. Some people have, and I respect them very much. Thank you for spending your time on this.
You know what, I'm going to add that this is actually a really good coverage of the whole situation. It captures the main aspects in a thorough and structured manner. You cover the issues with Tortoise Media while respecting the accusations themselves and you make a clear stance on the issues with the different possible scenarios. You show a critical eye for detail and you speak from a place of authority when it comes to the BDSM stuff (which I haven't seen many people do). Like, this is genuinely well done.
Clear and repeated consent is the main difference between BDSM and abuse with extra steps. =/
Some of the responses here sure are something 🙄. No folks, telling middle aged people to not go after much younger people on purpose IS NOT AGEIST. Ageism would be telling older people they can't have relationships or sex, or assuming they are abusive towards their younger partners by definition, if there is no other indication of that whatsoever.
Its a very different thing to find it alarming that someone in his 50s or 60s, famous and wealthy as well, deliberately pursues much younger women that he is in some kind of professional or parasocial relationship with. Especially if he does not do any work to acknowledge those power dynamics, and, most damningly imo, does not actually consistently try to establish enthusiastic consent or look after their wellbeing. And, if all of the specifics of the stories are true, he at times actively ignored or dismissed their discomfort.
This combined with the new episode from the Survivor Stories podcast seems to establish a pattern that is A LOT LESS like "middle aged man charmed by pretty young women, genuinely thought they consented to everything but could maybe done more to make sure?" & A LOT CLOSER TO "smart and relatively privileged man deliberately pursues much younger women and tries to push their boundaries and try out whatever he wants, without establishing consent while making sure there's juuuuuust enough of a grey area that he can claim it was all consensual".
On a lighter (...ish, bc when i actually think about it its pretty depressing) note: between this and Ophie Dokie's (good) video on this, finding out about those UK laws has been WILD. get out of people's bedrooms you weirdos!!!
going to take a break from this topic now, might edit this after i finish the video.
absolutely LOSING it over “IS HAMAS THE NEW TRANS”
I know right?
My heart is truly broken. I’m so tired of men acting poorly, and I hate always being disappointed.
Rachel Johnson has a sex collunm in The Daily Telegraph (right wing British Newspaper which is getting progressively more unhinged). It's behind a paywall but my mum has a subscription which she shares with my partner. Having read Rachel Johnson's collumn it doesn't surprise me that this podcast has an element of kink shaming. The most recent one I read she advised the LW not to pursue a BDSM relationship with a work colleague who LW manages because she should be trying to have a more 'normal' relationship with a man and not because it would be a weird abuse of power to initiate a sexual relationship with a subordinate.
That... Is flawed advice 😳
On consent:
As someone who is cool with kink, but also as someone who is turned off by talking/talking dirty ...
There are ways to agree in advance and agree to safe words or no during should someone change their mind.
I don't need society to shift the bar to someone constantly getting consent during.
Nor do I need society deciding that, as a woman, I need men to protect me from my choices.
Young adult women are still adults and have the right to consent to dating older men.
If a woman doesn't want to have ongoing consent conversations, or wants to sleep with a man whose power she finds attractive... it seems to me she has the right.
In an attempt to "protect" women we are moving towards infantalization.
I think we need to be having more nuanced conversations rather than making blanket decisions at the expense of female autonomy.
(For context I'm a 51 year old cis het woman who slept with older men at points in my life and am a survivor of DV and SA in my younger years)
You make some valid points about agency.
Concerning the aversion to dirty talk - there are also so many ways to signal consent nonverbally. And that is so hecking sexy too! Both need to be on the same page, but it immediately adds this element of being able to build tension.
I use a bracelet with with click-in button. And nothing beats the appeal of my partner looking at me and then peeking at my wrist. Or seeing me wear an especially cute dress and staring at the little go signal on my bracelet. Or their expression changing when I leisurely change out the "not in the mood button" for the "please go ahead" one in front of them.
It's fun, it's cute, it's sexy - and it's also great because both of us can struggle with words haha
I mean yes, young women have agency, but if they themselves are of the opinion they had a bad experience with dubious consent/being taken advantage of or something along that line, they should be taken seriously there as well, shouldn't they? As also a cis het/bi woman approaching 40, I can tell you I "consented" to things when I was younger not because I genuinely wanted and enjoyed them, but because I kind of thought I should, or that I signaled consent before so I shouldn't take it back if not absolutely necessary. I wouldn't do that anymore today, because I feel more confident and ok with who I am so I don't need to gain someone's approval through sex or think too much about how I *should* feel or behave. And my experiences were not coerced, the only person who "coerced" me in a way was myself.
My point being, a lot of young women still haven't quite figured out how to wield their sexuality in a way that's for their own benefit instead of it being owed to others (if they're your partner, if they're nice, if they buy you a drink, if they help you etc). Difference in life experience does create a power imbalance, and not the fun, playful kind. Putting an emphasis on consent (however you achieve that: discuss things beforehand or negotiate in the moment) helps with finding out if the other person really wants to do the thing or if they just kind of go along with it.
agreed, even if she later regretted it and in retrospect thought it was creepy or felt that consent wasn’t 100% (which is valid to feel after any sexual encounter), it’s as if a woman in her 20s is a completely helpless victim. while people are trying so hard to fight the patriarchy, they’re becoming extremely misogynistic. i also feel somewhat hesitant to say that consent is always black & white, when it’s actually a very complicated and messy real life thing. of course it should always be given freely & enthusiastically before any sexual act, but life (and sex) are way messier than people try to make it seem.
idk, the women coming forward about it have every right to feel how they do, it’s just all very strange to me when people jump to such harsh conclusions on things that are really not that cut & dry
This has been the point I've been making for several weeks now.
Does it give me slightly icky vibes when a much older man is with a younger woman? Often, yes, because come on man, she could be your daughter, what could you possibly have in common with her?
That being said...
Does that mean she is essentially a child who can't think for herself? No.
When I was 20, if I'd had the chance to sleep with then 44 yo Jeff Goldblum, would I have done it? YES. When I was 22, would I have slept with then 56 yo Harrison Ford? Sweet Jesus YES.
Women in their 20s are not children ffs.
In the UK, “no consent for assault” is and was often used to shut down illegal boxing matches as well as the conduct mentioned in this video.
It's also been used more than once to target Queer people indulging in BDSM while allowing the cishets to get away with the same acts
How is any boxing legal under that law?
@@Toksyuryel For a brief moment I'd wondered the same, but I can only hazard a guess that since there's contact in a number of the sports there, that someone was bright enough to say something like "but... rugby" and someone else important furrowed their brow and nodded to acknowledge they'd been outsmarted.
I do find it very strange that it hasn't been covered by mainstream UK news outlets.. like.. not even the Daily Mail who would leap at the chance of being able to take down a "Progressive". The Telegraph did have an article but again, just re-reporting using the podcast as a source.
It may be that the really bad quality of this podcast has discouraged reporting for the present.
Plus the guy has undeniable *national treasure* status here in UK.
The Telegraph has covered it a little bit which is not so surprising as Rachel Johnson writes for them. I think that perhaps this may lead to other papers looking into it. There must be some anxiety over a potential liable case which is preventing reporting. But if the other papers can quote from The Telegraph I am sure they will as this is less risky.
On second thoughts maybe he's taken out a super injunction? But surely if the subject of the injunction has been made public through the podcast then that should make the injunction void.
@@kinolibby6580 Thing is though about libel etc is that any self respecting paper or other news media would look at a potential story.. and then actually do their own research.
It just strikes me as odd that given just how huge this news would be, no one else has jumped on it. Because an editor or journo could easily look at the original podcast and go "hang on, is any of this actually true, this is huge" and then go investigate, rather than regurgitating what the podcast.
The fact that there aren't any other papers that have picked it up in that manner makes me think that the best case scenario may actually be the most likely: that he's certainly had some morally iffy and definitely questionable relationships but that the other claims may be unfounded.
It really is just the fact that no one else seems to have done any independent investigations on it that irks me, which is usually a journalist's bread and butter before they even get a story down. Like, there's nothing stopping them from giving the women who have made the allegations a call, or indeed Gaiman himself to ask for a comment.
His popularity and the UKs harsher Libel laws are probably the main reasons.
I hate that it's always the nanny 😔 also she was like 40 years younger that's definitely a power dynamic especially since she was employed by Amanda and Niel. You did a wonderful job covering this and the point you made about the BDSM dynamic and how it's abusive if your partner isn't into masochism.
Oh, nice to see someone talk about this! Personally, I'm really not sure how to feel about the whole thing. Something feels a bit off, but I can't pinpoint what. To be fair, I don't have all that much knowledge on the details.
Looking forward to watching this video!
The phrase "Gaiman's position" could be so funny just as a double entendre if this weren't such a dower situation.
*dour?
I'm adopting a wait-and-see mode. I can't comment on this with any objectivity. I am biased, very biased in favor of a personal hero. And I've lived through enough news about idols having feet of clay. I really don't want to live with the possible fact of another hero having done awful things. Writers and artists can be, and have been, callous monsters. It won't kill me, but it'll shake my faith in people.
As a follower of Gaiman's Tumblr seeing Wait and See in this context absolutely took me out and I can't believe this is what managed to make me crack a smile. Obviously a total aside and probably unintentional on your part but yeah. I hope we get more information too but woof is it hard. I was very shaken too.
Aside from the relationships/allegations themselves, this is a great example of the importance of media literacy. The current world we live in is really focused on headlines that appeal to emotions, and discourage people to critically think, consider, or investigate where news is coming from. I love the in depth investigation you’ve done into the framing, sources, and overall journalism going on here
I want to say that I felt so safe wading into this with you, after avoiding as much as possible because it has been upsetting.
As someone who grew up in NZ and experienced *things* there, NZ police handled it so badly. Including asking questions implying *things* were my fault based on my attire and location. I also had to go into a large, open office, remove my clothing save for underwear, and be photographed up close by a male officer with no one else present. This was twenty years ago. Hopefully they have changed since. I left the country not long afterwards.
I'm sorry you had to go through that - hope you're in a safer, better place now
@@alejajm1666 thank you. 🦋
The pattern is ESPECIALLY crucial when you're dealing with complex areas of consent, especially around kink, that could be conceivable an error / miscommunication / misunderstanding. If someone is in a dozen dominant relationships and 11 of them say "he was great at consent" and 1 had a bad experience, I'm willing to chalk that up to a mistake. If 12 say "I was uncomfortable, consent was confusing and there seemed to be a lot of miscommunication", he's absolutely doing it on purpose and the 'grey area' is a trick he's using to obscure his abuse.
I'm more concerned personally with the harm that's done. "He's normally really good at consent" but just made a woopsies doesn't matter if the woopsies was rape physical harm or murder
The silence from comic news sites that normally can't resist a story like this suggests that the industry might be trying to protect him. If enough people keep talking about a story that it's clearly impossible to kill it, embargos like that do tend to get lifted eventually.
Hm, might also mean it’s baseless slander. But sure, why not go with your conspiracy.
Again - they're treating it like unhoused Radium b/c try as they might, Tortise "Media" are jerking themselves off if they think they can out-bullshit anyone not stupid enough to fall for a ginned-up bag of smoke.
It’s absolutely valid to feel “I really, really hope this isn’t true” AND “If this is true, I really need to know”!
Both can be true, and more people who hope things aren’t true need to be willing to dig in.
I also hope it isn’t true, but want to know if it is. I’ve been overwhelmed by important and urgent life stuff, so I won’t have an opinion until I finish listening to you.
I loved Gaiman's work... but WTF was he thinking with this BS?
Men, can you stop going after women _3 to 4 decades_ younger than you, _especially_ if there's an additional power differential?
I've been in this type of situation, and afterward realized I was abused - couldn't speak, didn't have a safe word, would have ended it but was so 'stuck' in the scene I just went through with it, but I knew there was no way to legally press charges. But I was young (21) and stupidly passive/unwilling to stick up for myself.
Older people ought to know better than to pursue young people for sex amd especially kink. What happened, if true, is wrong - in a Russel Brand-way wrong.
The text message frequency and contents are confusing. When I reached out to my scene partner afterwards and said "Hey, this sorta sucked and I feel used - I would have stopped," I heard "Look, you may feel used, but I did no using." So Gaiman responding with "I feel so bad I want to die" is interesting.
Maybe I'm too close to this, having been through it, but WTF Gaiman. 😡🥺😭
From my perspective, the lack of communication, of setting up a safeword and other precautions, of negotiation ahead of time, is so much more the issue than just the age gap.
I can see that it would be *possible* for a relationship with a large age gap to work, but *only* if the older partner is very, very careful to walk the younger through everything, to check in constantly and to listen to and act on everything they say, and teach them that it's actually the sub who has control of a healthy relationship.
@@CritterKeeper01 my only point, having been that age when I got into the scene, after knowing my kinks for YEARS, is that fantasy does not prepare one for reality, and the more experienced partner (from age or time in the scene, but a LOT of the time it's age) has a lot of responsibility to - as you say - check and double check. But I've begun to believe (30+ years later) that approaching a naive/young partner for scening is the act of someone who absolutely does not want to hear 'no'.
Yes, you folks are speaking my language, thank you
@@christineherrmann205This is some good nuance. There is a big, big difference between an older adult approaching an inexperienced barely adult for a scene and an inexperienced barely adult approaching an older adult for a scene.
Sounds like emotional blackmail for him to have said that
20 years ago you didn't expect to hear "yes" but you did expect the person to stop if you said "no". Even today it's a weird concept for us oldsters. But we all should know by now. Great video, thanks.
It's a weird concept for you oldsters? So 20 plus years is not enough to drill it into your head?
@@Aster_Risk You'll understand when you're 40+ and your brain has calcified too.
@@Aster_Riskfor many “oldsters” they weren’t even dating during those 20+ years (if they were happily and monogamously married, for instance). So yeah, 20 years wasn’t enough because there was no practicing of the new behaviors. Might not even be aware of them in any concrete way, in fact, if one wasn’t actively dating. It’s actually a pretty big mindset shift, from No Means No, to Yes Means Yes. It’s not an excuse for failing to learn and grow, once one is in the dating scene again (say from the death of a spouse.)
It's never felt fair to judge past events by present standards, or older people by relatively new cultural ideals. I'm 22, and even I remember watching the distinct linguistic shift in what "counts" as consent. Seems like a lot of people genuinely believe that every single instance of someone failing to say "yes" out loud was r*pe. No matter when it happened. But cultural standards were different! A lack of a no did usually mean yes, before. In some situations, it still means yes. The whole thing is so much more nuanced than can be summed up by only one person's version of events, or a snappy headline.
Either way, it is creepy to sleep with your nanny. I know people who work in in-home childcare and housekeeping, and the boundaries are already so blurred that it's important to keep things as professional as you can, in the vast majority of cases.
@@Aster_Risk Something can only get drilled into your head through exposure and repetition. I have been purposefully single and solitary for over 20 years, so my only dating experience is from a very different time. Date rape was not even a term when I was 18, over 30 years ago, or at least not one I had heard. I quickly learned a lot, but accepted behavior kept evolving and I was not in the game.
I really appreciate your take, Vera because it does reflect the conflict I have about what to do with this information. I’ll be honest that my opinion on Neil has been going downhill over the last couple years because of some things I’ve heard and seen in the Good Omens spaces before this came out. I think I’m going to keep my books especially Good Omens because it wasn’t just his work and I’ll watch the show for the same reason. However I’m less sure about Sandman or anything else he comes out with. Honestly, I’m
Just sad and disappointed in him and I want to have a more reputable news outlet investigate this independent of this weird podcast. I hope the women get the help they need regardless
I was also confused about whether the responses Gaiman had supposedly given were actual quotes with sources or not, but bringing up anything like that in public got people hit with "you're using trans people to protect rapists!" Even if you explained that you believe the women who came forward; even if you think there's enough evidence from people in the industry that this reveal isn't even surprising (apparently Gaiman being a problematic shit was a well known secret in the industry, which...is its own fucking discussion to be had...). Gods, someone said "they'll look for dirt on David Tennant next", to which I replied with "true, but also I hope David Tennant hasn't done anything" and I basically got called a rape apologist?? It made me give up on social media once and for all. The truth will come out in the end. And maybe it is better if I don't say anything that could be somehow misconstrued as defending Gaiman.
Honestly, you shouldn't be harassed or called a rape apologist even if you DID defend Gaiman, or suggest that he might not be as bad as people are saying.
IMO, it's totally fair (and responsible) to do your due diligence before blindly believing anybody involved. Maybe Gaiman did do all the stuff he's been accused of, maybe he did some of it, maybe none of it. Maybe he was being malicious, maybe there were misunderstandings, maybe the encounters were traumatic for the women but not actually non-consensual. Especially with how much ideas around what "counts" as consent have shifted over the last 10-20 years. Makes me genuinely a bit sad to see nuance thrown out the window so quickly when allegations surface. I totally understand erring on the side of supporting victims, but I feel like there might be more balance to be had. People go all mob mentality at the drop of a hat.
1:08:07 Something drilled into writers is "describe what is there, not what isn't". If you say "there were no trees on the hill" instead of "the hill was barren", your audience still has trees in their mind. I guarantee even bad journalists know this
Not me and you yelling "by whom?!?!" At the same time trying to figure out who gave them Neil's "account" or "position"
“If you don’t know how to make consent sexy, that’s a skill issue” I gleefully cackled at that, because that is so very true!!!
There is also the scenario that, since Boris Johnson's sister is in the podcast, incompetance runs in the family.
I get the impression that NG has a lot of the old school rock star entitlement and this leads to predatory behaviour.
It was pretty common in the comic book writer field back in the day. Almost every writer I like has some predatory sex rumor about them.
I am extremely impressed with your correct use of "whom" mid-rant.
I'm impressed anybody noticed.
Thank you for deconstructing this report, that's very educational! I feel bad for these women. Whatever they went through, this podcast isn't doing them many favors.
If it helps, Johnson is well-known in the UK - imagine if you'd seen these allegations on a show hosted by Don Trump Jr. Much the same level of trustworthiness in the public mind.
I have noticed there’s a handful of folks coming out to defend Tortoise or even Galizia, but nobody’s defended Johnson to me.
For real. I'm clueless enough to not really know anything about her before this, but the mention of Boris alone is enough to turn her name from green to red in my psychic closed captions.
Listening to your explanation on the reportage, I too can't help but feel frustrated with how the victims' allegations are handled by Tortoise Media 🤦🏽. I trust the victims, but the bungling of the story by TM is unforgivable. They deserve better news outlets to bring their allegations to light (and to hold Neil Gaiman accountable).
I also agree with your assessment on Neil's behavior in all of those cases - at best one could say that he was (is?) _clumsy_ with consent, which made things go bad (and that's an understatement 🤦🏽) in all those allegations. At worst... he regularly took advantage of his young female fans and that's just... 🤢🤢🤬🤬. At any rate he needs to be taken accountable of his misdeeds.
Commiserations to all whose positive feelings on Gaiman's works are now tainted due to these allegations. I hope you could manage it and go out of it with little loss to yourself.
Take care y'all
I really really enjoyed your final verdict on this. You're giving this the nuance it deserves by calling out that even the best case scenario doesn't look good for Gaiman.
It's painful because man, I liked that guy's works. This is definitely going to lessen some of that enjoyment. But I'd rather be well informed about it than ignorant.
Thank you for doing this. As a lady kinkster myself, my immediate gut reaction to this whole debacle was oh great, the edgy author in a poly marriage is in trouble for being too kinky. My second reaction was immediate sympathy for the victim, because I recognize how confusing and strange it would be to be exposed to that kind of behavior without any prior context. Without knowing all that went on, I totally get how strange this must seem to anyone who doesn't have a personal understanding of the nature of this kind of situation. Many people adore certain scenarios, fantasies or situations and i can only imagine the horror of realization on both sides. That one has found themselves in a situation they don't understand and they can't control, or that one has inflicted that same scenario on someone else. Nobody needs to be evil or conniving here, pushing boundaries can often lead to mistakes made. Sometimes horrible mistakes.
Falsely calling one of the women mentality I'll? Hmmm...
"Nobody needs to be evil or conniving here, pushing boundaries can often lead to mistakes made." Thank you!! we need more nuance like this in our opinions.. instead of going on saviour marches and witch hunts.
I understand that some level of nuance is important in understanding these things. But this comment sometimes reads as both-sidesing to a degree that minimizes the harm of consent violation, making it sound like it's just as bad for the wealthy, powerful 60 year old man who violated consent as it is for the 20 year old live-in employee whose consent he violated and was careless with... (e.g , the part focusing on "the horror of the realization on both sides).
Most people who commit abuse of various kinds aren't evil monsters. But that doesn't mean that someone with a pattern of seemingly predatory behaviour should have their harmful actions minimized, either. Our culture already leans so heavily towards abuse apologism... powerful men who abuse people don't really need us to defend them.
@@Talentedtadpole Since we don't have a real statement from Gaiman, he can't be accused of that. It was Scarlet who questioned herself.
@@Badficwriter what are you talking about, he literally said this!
Thank you so much for covering this. I just hope others will also pick it up and investigate it. The silence is so unnerving
The fact that this story was broken by such a kink-negative platform is a travesty. Hearing Scarlet's account as they presented it, I can't tell if she didn't consent or if she just felt pressured by the power dynamic and regretted it. I've had a couple experiences in kink situations where consent was given, but then the actions were regretted later (and I've been on both sides of the equation there), and I don't doubt that underinformed and mishandled kink can feel like abuse and lead to fear and depression, even if affirmative consent was given at the time. It could be that the story is presented vaguely because Scarlet said yes at the time, but didn't understand what she was consenting to and felt bad about it afterwards, perhaps because he took things farther than she thought he would or because she felt she couldn't be honest about her feelings due to the power imbalance. If that's the case, he's sleazy and bad at BDSM, but the journalists would know very well that a lot of people would dismiss Scarlet's feelings immediately if they knew she initially said yes to a lot of things, so they're being vague about it. In any case, Gaiman doesn't look good from the age gaps alone, so I feel like this would be a more productive conversation if everyone could focus on the power dynamics between celebrities and non-famous people and between people of different ages. Whether Scarlet didn't consent or "consented" but only because she felt pressured by her boss, it's messed up either way, and this could be a great opportunity to talk about that if Tortoise hadn't made it all about kink.
Great point about returning the focus to age/fame/employer imbalances. I think those are more ...subconscious/archetypal triggers that can turn what *may* feel like a balance at first, into accumulative feelings of imbalance/loss/naïveté shame, later. I hope that doesn't sound like an assumption against her, but I realized that I've never even heard the points you've mentioned be recognized when considering preventative communication prior to consensual kink, and that seems like a problem. I know it wouldn't be a productive legal argument because there's nothing specific enough there on paper (other than, perhaps, "employer"), but as a sociological conversation, it seems essential that whomever the power tips in favor of, has the final obligation to make those points. Just a bit more consideration in this encounter...such as Gaiman's obvious power bankroll being reason to ask if she would like to dom, may have made a huge difference in her overall perception of the encounter, and emotionally provided some padding. If you're going to hold all the power, and then demand someone call you "master" it seems common sense to make very sure the other person is confidently turned on by subbing, or, is even familiar with what it is. Clearly, her age should've, at the very least, flagged Gaiman to inquire about her level of familiarity. That's what makes it feel lacking in empathy, and somewhat predatory-ish. Sorry for the rant ;)
If she was pressured she didn't consent. And of course it came from an anti kink place. Pro kink people would have just further abused her for makeing them look bad just like you are
A barrister is a trial lawyer, lawyers in the UK are either solicitors or barristers.
Thanks for this! I didn’t realize that barrister was a specific type of lawyer rather than just UK terminology in general.
@@rylsahawneh3662 Ah well then it's the barrister who wear the wigs, in case you ever watch Law & Order UK! x
Yes. As I've come to understand it, a soliciter is the one who does the intake and initial consultation and analysis of the case, whereas the barrister decides whether or not to take the case and directs all prep for the legal actions and court appearances, as well as actually being the one who appears in court in those (anachronistically silly) wigs
@@herbivarsawus4359 There’s a UK version of Law and Order? I didn’t know that! I’m curious how it compares to the US versions.
@@rylsahawneh3662 Jamie Bamber is in it in case you're missing him from BSG. :)
28:22 The whole discussion about “not saying no ≠ yes” is such an important aspect of these situations. The whole Melanie Martinez allegations resurfacing also show this, as “she didn’t say no” was literally in her defense for being accused of coercing someone into intimacy. I’m very glad you explained that so directly, I wish more people would, because it apparently hasn’t become clear to the wider online world for some damn reason.
It's extra nauseating to hear all the ads crammed into the podcast, on top of all the really sloppy "journalism"... let's max out profit off this really sad and upsetting story.
I saw this on a random Reddit post awhile ago and hoped beyond hope it was false. Especially as I have not heard anything else about it since. Then I saw you were covering it and immediately felt sick. I still do. But thank you for all the work you did. I don’t know where I’m going to land but I appreciate that I have some better information now.
A well thought out and heavy video, I hope you take the time to recover all the energy this must have drained. Thank you for an informative video, I will have to wait and see what my feeling are too 🙏🏾❤️
I read that through the grapevine these things have been happening for years, which genuinely broke my heart. So yeah, not thrilled at this news, but it seems like it's corroborated. Even without the whole extra bits, without the corroboration, without the kink... I still find it distateful. He did admit to having a relationship with them, and they were in their 20's while he was in his 40's which is skeevy to me.The clear power imbalance in both relationships kinda feels icky.
I mean, yeah, it does come off as a bit odd to be that age and dating someone that much younger. Power imbalances and age gaps are definitely hard to navigate. I don’t know that I’d usually be attracted to someone who was that much “below” me, because I’d feel so paternal.
But it must be genuinely hard to pursue totally equal relationships when you're that famous. Like, the power imbalance is kinda inescapable at that point, unless you only date other famous people.
@@taylorbowser571 Takeuchi Naoko, of Sailor Moon fame managed to marry someone her age in her 40's of equal status. (Togashi of HunterxHunter which she also helped with on occasion. She did the first image in the manga--the background in the first panel.) by asking friends to help hook her up. She was his fan, but from what she's drawn of the relationship it wasn't in huge power imbalance way. He had equal fame and status, though granted in shounen.
I think one could game dating in a way so there isn't a double power imbalance. I mean the age imbalance, the fame imbalance, the riches imbalance is dizzying.
I don't think it's impossible.
BTW, I'm not anti-kink, and not anti-BDSM or anti-open marriages, but the important part is the consent bit. You need to double up on consent with each of those and part of BDSM is the planning stages ahead of time, which honestly I wish fiction would discuss more. (research into it on my end). Enthusiastic consent needs to be doubled up front.
@@kimyoonmisurnamefirst7061 I think that that’s a pretty rare example you threw out. Yes, it’s possible to find someone else of similar socioeconomic standing and status, but that’s really limiting. You shouldn’t have to give yourself such a narrow dating pool. Adults should be free to date any other adult they want, with the exception of teachers and (usually) people above them in the workplace. It might be more complicated if there’s an imbalance due to age or wealth, but I trust people enough to be able to figure that out, or leave if it becomes uncomfortable, provided they’re not literally held hostage.
@@taylorbowser571 The age imbalance shouldn't be in place. Someone barely 20 has a different brain development than someone 30. (Washington Post). Even then, there are different life goals.
I still don't think it should be just 20 (as in this case) with a 40+ year old. Especially considering she was "dating" him according to the story before she was 20, which veers somewhat into grooming. That's a yuck.
20 year olds don't know what they are doing when they are dating 40 year olds. But 40 year olds absolutely know what they are doing--if you follow public stories, yes. I have no issues with 30 with a 40 year old, if that floats their boat, but 20 year olds are at a different life stage. 20 with 30 year old is really stretching it. But 20 with 40+ year old is a hard no. The consent gets a bit shaky, especially with the "I tried to sleep with my nanny" that's a power imbalance and not clear consent.
But I also think youth is oversold to adult males which is a whole thing to cover.
@@kimyoonmisurnamefirst7061 I find it really patronizing when people say adults in their twenties can’t make certain decisions. Yes, the neurology is a bit different, but that doesn’t immediately equate to “people in their twenties have no idea what they’re doing”. There’s a marked difference between being a slightly less developed adult and being a child.
I agree that it’s dicey, and should be done with extra care, but it’s not always inherently predatory. If I casually slept with or dated somebody who was 40, it’d be odd, but I’d be making my own, informed decision. I do agree that it’s not cool to sleep with your employee. But, like, again, people make their own adult decisions. If my boss tried to make a pass at me, I’d be creeped out enough that I’d simply quit. And it’s not as if she’d been working there for more than one day, so she obviously wasn’t already reliant on the income.
i literally just watched a doctor who episode written by Neil gainman and opened RUclips to look for some doctor who content. and this was the first thing recommended to me when I opened youtube, come oooooonnn -
Sorry.
Which ep did he write? I stopped watching halfway through Jodie's season. It's quite upsetting, this.
@@Lisa-x3n5x he wrote 2 episodes: 'Doctor's Wife' and "Nightmare in Silver' - both in Matt Smiths era.
I actually watched every NewWho Episode and saw a lot of potential in Jodie Whittaker. Unfortunately Chibnal had not so good ideas, awkward scripts and a general misunderstanding of the doctor.
The new Episodes (called 'NeoWho' hihi) are really good, have some cringe writing here and there, but also lovely queer representation. And the first black, openly gay doctor, which is really cool. Ncuti Gatwa is absolutely brilliant as a doctor!
Hooboy, you are incredibly right about the outlet that gave the news. I want this to be investigated the right way for the women's voices.
And still, I am sitting here with a sudden feeling of ick, disappointment and sadness. Neil Gaiman seemed like a good guy... But alas, even with the best interpretation in mind, he comes off as pretty shitty and not very aware of the position of power he had and still has.
Thank you for finding out so much and give such a wonderful explanation. This really helped me understand this all better.
Thank you and stay strong.
While it's great that a better understanding of consent as well as non vanilla practices is becoming more widespread, there's still a lot of people who will judge others for not remaining within the bounds of traditional relationships.
There will always be a tension between the need for privacy for celebrities (and anyone in power) and the need to protect those who could experience abuse at their hands.
I find it helpful to think of intimacy as money. We all understand that bribery and extortion is illegal (well, except for the US Supreme Court). If you have authority over another person, it would be inappropriate to expect them to pay you directly on the regular. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's helpful.
What is the best way to protect vulnerable/young people? In the longer term, comprehensive sex education and clear boundaries about consent should be the goal.
However, in the shorter term, listening to victims is the very first step. Regardless of whether perpetrators are punished, the publicity could encourage any potential victims to seek protection. Perhaps powerful people accused of abuse should have to pay for prevention strategies, like a chaperone/CCTV for any interviews or training or whatever is found to be most effective.
When it was mentioned that one of the people in the podcast was Boris Johnson's sister, there was a thought that the podcast was mainly there to paint a target on a openly progressive writer, especially one who has been an ally to trans people in the horribly bigoted UK. A large part of me is in disbelief about this, and a lot of that stems from these journalists. If new news comes to light, especially from proper journalists that actually do their jobs far better than the ones on the podcast, my stance will most likely change.
Believe it or not people with shitty political views can be victims of sexual assault.