Neil Gaiman (criminally) sexual deviant?

[Lynx-lynx]

The following articles recently came to my attention:
https://www.vulture.com/article/neil...man-madoc.html

Spoiler:

According to the podcast, which quoted Gaiman through his representatives, his position was that “sexual degradation, bondage, domination, sadism, and masochism may not be to everyone’s taste, but between consenting adults, BDSM is lawful.” (Gaiman declined to speak with me despite multiple requests, but through a legal representative, he responded to some claims.)

If you know nothing about BDSM, Gaiman’s claim that he was engaging in it with these women may sound plausible, at least in some cases. The kind of domineering violence he inflicted on them is common among people who practice BDSM, and all of the women, at some point, played along, calling him their master, texting him afterward that they needed him, even writing that they loved and missed him.

But there is a crucial difference between BDSM and what Gaiman was doing. An acronym for “bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, and sadism and masochism,” BDSM is a culture with a set of long-standing norms, the most important of which is that all parties must eagerly and clearly consent to the overall dynamic as well as to each act before they engage in it.

This, as many practitioners, including sex educators like Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy who wrote some of the defining texts of the subculture, have stressed over decades, is the defining line that separates BDSM from abuse. And it was a line that Gaiman, according to the women, did not respect. Two of the women, who have never spoken to each other, compared him to an anglerfish, the deep-sea predator that uses a bulb of bioluminescence to lure prey into its jaws. “Instead of a light,” on

https://nymag.com/magazine/toc/2025-01-13.html
"Call me Master" entitles Gaiman's photo on the front cover


Gaiman's sexual life and proclivities since the 80's are now exposed to the light, and it's a dark manipulative light.


Does this sort of revelation reduce his readability?


Is his personna part of his readability?


Dunno ...

[DiapDealer]

Me never being able to warm up to his writing style (though not through lack of trying) reduced his readability for me. I don't know a thing about him personally.

But isn't it a tad premature to label him a "criminally" sexual deviant? I would think that would require a conviction of some kind.

[Karellen]

Yea, I am not really a fan of his writing either. And that has absolutely nothing to do with that article.
Honestly I am a bit tired of all these news reports of gossiping of other peoples sex lives. It is an easy attack on people and it is free money for some of those so-called "victims".

If he had been found defrauding the tax department, maybe poisoned his wife, we would barely raise an eyebrow. But drag sex into it and the person should be destroyed and wiped away from history. I don't get it.
Honestly, how do the younger generation even have sex anymore with so many rules and fear of being dragged through the courts and being labelled a sex-offender for the rest of your life, because one partner wanted a bit of vengeance.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But isn't it a tad premature to label him a "criminally" sexual deviant? I would think that would require a conviction of some kind.

Add a question mark (?) if you like after 'criminally'

[Sirtel]

Attacks on people's sex lives were a tried and true method of dealing with your enemies even in the ancient Rome. I'm afraid we are never going to get rid of that.

Still, I don't certainly justify Gaiman's behavior if he really abused others (I'm not interested enough to find out what the truth is in this case).

[Quoth]

He certainly seems to have been economical on the facts about his Scientology background. An dubious organisation that has been in involved in criminality and lost religious/charity status in some countries.

But he has no convictions.

[cfrizz]

I couldn't care less about any writer's actor's musician's, entertainer's personal life.

There have been plenty of actor's who I found out later on down the line who were gay, lesbian, sexist, misogynistic, terrible parents or just plain bat $hit crazy! It doesn't change the fact that they are/were good at what they do and continue to entertain me.

If they are doing something illegal and end up going to jail, so be it. It still doesn't change the fact that they are a talented people and I enjoy their WORK.

That is all I care about.

Unless this author has been arrested and convicted of a crime, he can't really be called a criminal. If he broke the law, then it is up to whoever he violated to press charges against him. Otherwise, they run the risk of him suing them for slander.

[John F]

Two of the women, who have never spoken to each other, compared him to an anglerfish, the deep-sea predator that uses a bulb of bioluminescence to lure prey into its jaws.

That is quite a coincidence.

If Mr. Gaiman publishes another fiction book, I will most likely read it.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

I couldn't care less about any writer's actor's musician's, entertainer's personal life.

There have been plenty of actor's who I found out later on down the line who were gay, lesbian, sexist, misogynistic, terrible parents or just plain bat $hit crazy! It doesn't change the fact that they are/were good at what they do and continue to entertain me.

If they are doing something illegal and end up going to jail, so be it. It still doesn't change the fact that they are a talented people and I enjoy their WORK.

That is all I care about.

Ditto.

[Critteranne]

Originally Posted by Karellen

Yea, I am not really a fan of his writing either. And that has absolutely nothing to do with that article.
Honestly I am a bit tired of all these news reports of gossiping of other peoples sex lives. It is an easy attack on people and it is free money for some of those so-called "victims".

I don't see this as "gossip." This is detailed and in-depth journalism that delves into multiple aspects. It addresses the issues of consent and BDSM, for example. It also reveals that Neil Gaiman's father was a big wig in Scientology in England during Gaiman's childhood. And that Scientology upbringing resulted in Gaiman being abused when he was a child -- something he has avoided mentioning and clearly still needs to recover from.

Also, victim blaming sucks. It often comes from a place of not understanding all the legal issues of a very sticky issue. One of the victims was a young woman from an abusive family who was essentially homeless. The perfect victim. She ended up helping Gaiman's wife with free babysitting. (At the very least, they could have paid her.) He took clear advantage of someone who really had no place to go. The consent was dubious at best, and the article makes that very clear.

Yes, they paid her later, but she got around $9,000 -- and that included payments for babysitting.


There was also a victim who was threatened with eviction by Gaiman.

Originally Posted by Karellen

If he had been found defrauding the tax department, maybe poisoned his wife, we would barely raise an eyebrow. But drag sex into it and the person should be destroyed and wiped away from history. I don't get it.
Honestly, how do the younger generation even have sex anymore with so many rules and fear of being dragged through the courts and being labelled a sex-offender for the rest of your life, because one partner wanted a bit of vengeance.

If he had just had affair, that would be one thing. Plenty of writers have been forgiven for that. But this is more than just an affair or several affairs. It's a pattern of abuse. Let's not forget that sex can be a criminal act, of course-- if consent is not given.

[Sirtel]

Writers are people just like all others. Some of them do reprehensible things; some of them commit crimes. Personally I prefer to keep a person's work and personality/real life separate - I'm not interested in the latter. Yes, it's fully possible that Gaiman is not a nice person, or even that he is a horrible person. That doesn't influence my decision to read his work in either direction.

(No, I'm not a fan of Gaiman. But let's face it, many excellent works, some of them now considered classics and taught in schools, were penned by people I'd want to avoid in real life like the plague).

[DNSB]

The only author whose works I refuse to read for sexual reasons is Marion Zimmer Bradley who wrote a defence of her spouse's sexual abuse of children.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DNSB

The only author whose works I refuse to read for sexual reasons is Marion Zimmer Bradley who wrote a defence of her spouse's sexual abuse of children.

If you read the Gaiman allegations, they include activities that constitute child sexual abuse also. (Sexual activity with a child awake and in the same room)

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Karellen

Honestly, how do the younger generation even have sex anymore [...].

Consensually. Hope this helps

[rantanplan]

Originally Posted by meeera

Consensually. Hope this helps

Yeah, even the news articles just summarizing the allegations are devastating. How can anyone make a gen-z joke about this and think they made a point?

Essentially, the allegations are this:

• Rape, non-consensual BDSM (which is, again, rape)
• His underage child was present and awake at one occasion and I think this also counts as rape in some countries
• His then wife Amanda Palmer knew what happened and instead of supporting the victims suggested that Gaiman gets himself into therapy

Like WTF? None of this has anything to do with sex.

If he was dead already, I could kind of understand that you may ignore the private life of an author, but buying Gaiman's books directly supports his "lifestyle".



To be clear, no kink shaming, BDSM is absolutely a legitimate for of sex, but it requires consent.