Neil Gaiman Denies Sexual Assault Allegations Made by Two Women ( www.rollingstone.com )

Neil Gaiman — the best-selling author whose work includes comic book series *The Sandman *and the novels Good Omens and American Gods — has denied sexual assault allegations made against him by two women with whom he had relationships with at the time, Tortoise Media reports.

The allegations were made during Tortoise’s four-part podcast Master: the Allegations Against Neil Gaiman, which was released Wednesday. In it, the women allege “rough and degrading sex” with the author, which the women claim was not always consensual.

One of the women, a 23-year-old named Scarlett, worked as a nanny to his child.

clockwork_octopus ,

Ugh. And I liked him as an author. Why can’t it be a crappy writer instead? Now I’m gonna feel bad every time I read one of his works. What an asshole.

some_guy ,

This will make a friend of mine sad. She's a big fan. Sigh. Never meet your heroes.

Hotmailer ,

Can someone define rape, cuz I'm genuinely confused. He didn't take their clothes off or force himself on them I gather.

Silentiea ,
@Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Loosely, it's rape any time you have sex with someone who doesn't currently want to be having sex with you. That's pretty much the broadest possible terms.

some_guy ,

At one point, she alleged that he penetrated her despite her objecting because she was in the midst of a urinary tract infection; the incident left her “screaming” in pain. Gaiman denied K’s allegations and told Tortoise he was “disturbed” by the accusations.

At least read the fucking thing.

feedum_sneedson ,

Knew it.

SaltySalamander ,
@SaltySalamander@fedia.io avatar

Did you now?

Snowpix ,
@Snowpix@lemmy.ca avatar

Sure you did, buddy. Sure you did.

genuineparts ,
@genuineparts@infosec.pub avatar

But he said in his statement that he's a Gaiman.

mortemtyrannis ,

Booo to the people that downvoted you.

Ashyr ,

Sleeping with the nanny less than half your age isn't a great start for a discussion of power dynamics in a sexual relationship.

I'm not going to assume anything either way, bo the women deserve to be heard, at the very least.

sir_pronoun ,

Agreed, but in my experience people in their early twenties can be surprisingly experienced and conscious kinksters, able to voice consent and negotiate intense situations. While people in their fourties can be incredibly insecure, unable to communicate their needs and insecurities, while still wanting to play.

It's a matter of experience, self-awareness and skills, and those don't come with age, but with work on yourself and education. We need so much more sex education and communication about these things.

The woman in question doesn't seem to be an experienced kinkster though, and she should totally be heard in any case. But the age argument distracts from the real issues, I believe.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

People in their forties who are also massive global celebrities? I doubt he was especially insecure.

apfelwoiSchoppen ,
@apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world avatar

*60s

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Oops. You're right. I read 'forties' from the person I was replying to and wires got crossed.

apfelwoiSchoppen ,
@apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world avatar

One of the accusations was twenty years ago so 40s applies.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Either way, he was a big celebrity then and he is one now, so I don't think we can argue that this was some insecurity on his part.

intensely_human ,

Well, celebrities have more to lose if their sexual partner becomes hostile, so that could be one way celebrities are insecure about sex.

SaltySalamander ,
@SaltySalamander@fedia.io avatar

If you truly believe that a celebrity can't be insecure, you don't really understand how humans work.

sir_pronoun ,

I didn't mean him in that example, but the bottom of the power dynamic being 40, or 20.

vidarh ,
@vidarh@lemmy.stad.social avatar

The age matters less than the power-dynamics of her being his nanny.

Telodzrum ,

I disagree. I think they are both of equal, but different import.

intensely_human ,

As in he controls her paycheck but she has physical access to his kids?

Telodzrum ,

Oh, I’m sorry that was unclear. The age/maturity dynamic is as important here as the employer/employee one. I didn’t mean the two parties are on equal footing.

sir_pronoun ,

Yes, absolutely. That's what I was trying to say. Also, because of another reply in this thread: I didn't mean him, or him being insecure, in my example of the fourty year old.. I meant a 40 year old at the bottom of the power dynamics. As compared to a 20 year old.

irotsoma ,
@irotsoma@lemmy.world avatar

I think under 25 is still not a full adult. There's research that the brain isn't fully developed. And personality is still in flux as well. I couldn't care less about huge age differences, but only when older than 25-30.

Ashyr ,

I'll disagree about age. At 23, the pre-frontal cortex is still developing and won't be finished until around 25.

It's responsible for:

  • Executive functions (planning, decision-making, problem-solving)
  • Impulse control
  • Emotional regulation
  • Social interactions and behavior

There is a distinct imbalance between someone in their 60's and someone in their early 20's. I'm not saying it can't be carefully and respectfully navigated, but it has to be acknowledged and accounted for.

It doesn't sound like that happened here.

Then we have the power dynamic of a celebrity who is also your employer. Add in a healthy dose of fictive kinship due to the live-in nature of a nanny and you're in a situation rife with the potential for abuse.

sir_pronoun ,

Absolutely! Good point with brain development. As you said, I believe it can be navigated, and just shouldn't be the focus point, or reason for immediate judgement. All those other points you listed are far more relevant.

Aqarius ,

IIRC, that study didn't conclude it stopped at 25, it expected it to stop at 18, but it kept going, and they ran out of funding at 25. A likely conclusion is that it never really stops, it's just that what was measured wasn't really development, but "change".

Ashyr ,

Okay, source it if you've got it, because the idea that a single study ran out of funding at 25 and that's where the number comes from is such an odd suggestion, as though no one else has studied the brain's development and neuroscientists everywhere just shrugged and thought, "if only the funding were there."

Here's a well-sourced article that concludes the brain continues to develop well into the mid-20's.

While the brain will always continue to develop and grow, due to neuroplasticity, the concern is whether or not the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for long-term decision making, is properly developed. This development continues into the mid-20's and is well-documented.

Here's a 2022 study where they looked at over 100,000 brain scans from people 110 days old to over 100 years old used to draw and affirm similar conclusions.

While 25 isn't magic number, as everyone's brains develop on different timelines, it is a rational and reasonable landmark that can be reliably used for broad discussions.

Here's more from the National Institute of Mental Health and Penn Medicine.

intensely_human ,

Not sure how exactly your sources are measuring “development”, but at the age of 41
I know for a fact I still have prefrontal neurogenesis happening. I still have neuroplasticity, etc. My brain’s not going to stop developing until I’m dead.

Ashyr ,

That's neuroplasticity, which is true.

intensely_human ,

Right, so do you know how your sources are differentiating “development” from “neuroplasticity”?

iAvicenna ,
@iAvicenna@lemmy.world avatar

and only a couple hours after they first met...

afraid_of_zombies ,

You never had sex on the first date?

Jumi ,

Sorry, I'm still at the getting a first date stage

afraid_of_zombies ,

Oh. Well keep your chin up things. Confidence and competency are key.

DragonTypeWyvern ,

You were supposed to cheer him up, not shatter his dreams twice!

AnxiousOtter ,

Nope /shrug. Not something that ever happened to me. Married with kids now.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Fair.

Bell ,

I have no idea if he's a bad guy or wrongfully accused...but these two stories don't sound convincing at all.

Valmond ,

If you have absolutely no idea, then why don't you like shut up man?

Bell ,

So your addition to the conversation is that we should not have a conversation. Got it

pageflight ,

The contribution I read is: If you didn't have specific evidence or context to add, then throwing in a 'don't trust women claiming SA' is counterproductive. May not have been OP's intent, but that's what a vague distrust of the women's stories sounds like.

SaltySalamander ,
@SaltySalamander@fedia.io avatar

You could do the same.

linearchaos ,
@linearchaos@lemmy.world avatar

Two separate unrelated people.

Both in their twenties

Invites them into second/third base consensual relations and then it turns into rough sex.

I think that it's an absolutely reasonable assumption that he is into younger women and doesn't stop after he gets the green light.

But the article is light on details, and he at least deserves to have his say in court over it.

intensely_human ,

I think that it's an absolutely reasonable assumption that he is into younger women and doesn't stop after he gets the green light.

Why do you this is an absolutely reasonable assumption?

Into younger women is pretty normal, but raping isn’t normal. Do you mean it’s a reasonable assumption given these accusations?

Notyou ,
@Notyou@sopuli.xyz avatar

Not who you replied to, and Gaiman may be innocent, but we should listen and find out. The "absolutely reasonable assumption" is probably based on his age and how he was raised.

I don't know how many men you dealt with that were raised with the mindset of "if she said yes once it means she says yes ALL THE TIME," but some men feel that way. Hell a very famous and still popular movie has "Tell me more. Tell me more. Did she put up a fight?" In the opening of the movie. It seems kind of reasonable to me to assume being raised that "no" is something you have to "fight through" might mess with head.

I'm not trying to justify any actually actions. I'm just saying I would listen to the victims before I dismiss the accusations just because I like the art he makes.

intensely_human ,

One character saying something in a movie is not the equivalent of anyone being raised this guy. Also the existence of people like that doesn’t make it a reasonable assumption that this is how the guy thinks or behaves.

linearchaos ,
@linearchaos@lemmy.world avatar

FFS you're just cherry picking your way through anything anyone says.

Argue anyone's whole comment in context or just go be a fanboy. You don't really mind if you don't like it but you're retorts are weak.

linearchaos ,
@linearchaos@lemmy.world avatar

The first three statements in my post support the fourth. Just because you don't like my conclusion doesn't make it unreasonable.

From the light details in the article, here's what's not in question: He came on to his nanny. He came on to his fan. Two separate unrelated people. They are both half his age. They both have unsubstantiated but like stories.

Now any of three things could be lies or deceptions or something else. That's why if he has something to say he deserves to be heard.

We don't have any form of denial from his side. No claims of I don't know these people or you don't have all the facts. No statements of collusion. I would assume his lawyer said don't say anything. Well this is fine and does not make him guilty it also doesn't give us even the slightest indication that any of this is a fabrication.

The next problem is when I say it's reasonable that is my subjective opinion. If you know him and have a long personal knowledge of his history maybe you have a different opinion than me.

Based on the information that's brought forward substantiated and unsubstantiated I'm saying that this is a reasonable and likely direction that this will head. That is unless they settle out of court and what you won't hear about it again.

gedaliyah Mod ,
@gedaliyah@lemmy.world avatar

Say it ain't so 😥

MelodiousFunk ,
@MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net avatar

https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/2f4041f3-ba25-40e9-a47b-f64d314e173b.webp

Stopthatgirl7 OP ,
@Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world avatar

Gaiman is one of my favorite writers and I actually have stuff signed by him, so…yeah.

jeffw Mod , (edited )
@jeffw@lemmy.world avatar

Editing this comment because it appears it has come across to some as doubting the accusers, when I intended to present a skeptical comment about Gaiman. To clarify, my point is that they have plenty of evidence and he has made one rebuttal, which included a lie about one of the victims.

TwinTusks ,
@TwinTusks@bitforged.space avatar

Lighting definitely strikes more than twice.

sirico ,
@sirico@feddit.uk avatar

Just like my dad

ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

...in ten pin bowling, right?

... right?

ekZepp ,
@ekZepp@lemmy.world avatar

0551_Gallery

wildcardology ,

Have you ever heard of a lightning rod?

jeffw Mod ,
@jeffw@lemmy.world avatar

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    thrawn ,

    used to say that a very unusual event is not likely to happen again to the same person or in the same place

    As commentary on the idiom and not the topic of the thread, surely it’s an ineffective idiom if the meaning is vastly different from the saying? I feel like everyone had a “it does strike twice, though” moment in their life after hearing this exact phrase

    jeffw Mod , (edited )
    @jeffw@lemmy.world avatar

    Except the whole “women coming after him” is steeped in misogyny and not reality. How many people get accused by multiple victims of the same thing, with evidence and witnesses? I’m not clear about the 2005 case, but the more recent one has physical evidence and witnesses. Gaiman’s evidence is an already disproven claim. One side has physical evidence while one is lying.

    awesome_lowlander , (edited )

    So what you're saying is, all I need to do to get one of my exes jailed is get to know another disgruntled ex of theirs? Awesome!

    Edit: Just to note that parent comment has been ninja edited, multiple hours after my comment was made and a whole conversation was carried out. The original comment was something to the effect of 'Two people accused him, it MUST be true!'

    jeffw Mod ,
    @jeffw@lemmy.world avatar

    Yes, it’s a conspiracy! That’s a great first assumption. Classic misogyny

    awesome_lowlander ,

    No, you're the one who started with the assumptions. The correct behaviour is to make no assumptions and wait for the legal system to sort things out.

    Jeez, I can't believe I'm having to explain this to a mod on one of the biggest communities on lemmy.

    jeffw Mod , (edited )
    @jeffw@lemmy.world avatar

    Of course we shouldn’t lock someone up based on an accusation but courts are imperfect. Many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit and other crimes are difficult to convince people on. It’s also highly unlikely Gaiman will ever go to a criminal trial over this, like so many other people who commit sexual assault. That’s why you don’t wait for a conviction to support women.

    Estimates of false accusations are usually under 1 in 20. This article claims 2-10%. why would you default to that position? Again, we are not a court of law. You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.

    Regardless, the evidence presented so far is more than sufficient for a conviction. In the Gaiman cases, we have multiple witnesses and contemporaneous evidence for both women. It’s not just 2 random people making claims. Why would this be a vast conspiracy of 2 women who faked contemporaneous evidence and both have multiple witnesses and physical evidence? What evidence do you have that all of their evidence is fake?

    Edit: let’s go one step farther. The 2 women have witnesses and contemporaneous evidence. Gaiman made a claim that one woman had a memory disorder, which has already been proven false. Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence, you are siding with the one whose only evidence has been debunked within hours. Again, why?

    awesome_lowlander , (edited )

    I'm all for supporting women. Give them a chance to speak out, make sure they are fairly listened to and taken seriously. You've gone a step beyond that, you've already decided guilt and innocence and proclaimed it. More, you're doing so from a position of influence (yes, as a moderator of a large community, that's what you are). This is the sort of thing that libel charges get filed for (ok, not gonna happen at our current size, but you may want to start keeping that in mind.)

    Why would you default to that?

    Because that's the basis of our legal bloody system! There's a thousand law professors out there who can explain it better and more eloquently than I could in a thousand years, but that's the gist of it.

    You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.

    That's correct. We do, however, need a conviction before stating it as fact instead of opinion.

    Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence

    I beg to differ. I have not sided with any party. What is it about people today that they seem unable to grasp the concept of neutrality?

    jeffw Mod ,
    @jeffw@lemmy.world avatar

    So what you’re saying is, all I need to do to get one of my exes jailed is get to know another disgruntled ex of theirs? Awesome!

    This doesn't insinuate it's a lie? You're being disingenuous now lol.

    awesome_lowlander ,

    No, it does not. I have not read anything about Gaiman's case, and have absolutely no opinion on it at this point. My comment was entirely a commentary on the absurdity of your logic.

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    No one forced you to watch the Amazon adaption of Good Omens. You can have just stuck with the book.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Or this dude?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Sullivan

    Lightning apparently can strike at least seven times if you're Roy Sullivan.

    awesome_lowlander ,

    Or, we could stick to our system of presuming innocence until guilt is proven.

    harrys_balzac ,

    Sounds like communism. /s

    jeffw Mod ,
    @jeffw@lemmy.world avatar

    I’m going to copy and paste my reply from elsewhere:

    Of course we shouldn’t lock someone up based on an accusation but courts are imperfect. Many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit and other crimes are difficult to convince people on. It’s also highly unlikely Gaiman will ever go to a criminal trial over this, like so many other people who commit sexual assault. That’s why you don’t wait for a conviction to support women.

    Estimates of false accusations are usually under 1 in 20. This article claims 2-10%. why would you default to that position? Again, we are not a court of law. You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.

    Regardless, the evidence presented so far is more than sufficient for a conviction. In the Gaiman cases, we have multiple witnesses and contemporaneous evidence for both women. It’s not just 2 random people making claims. Why would this be a vast conspiracy of 2 women who faked contemporaneous evidence and both have multiple witnesses and physical evidence? What evidence do you have that all of their evidence is fake?

    Edit: let’s go one step farther. The 2 women have witnesses and contemporaneous evidence. Gaiman made a claim that one woman had a memory disorder, which has already been proven false. Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence, you are siding with the one whose only evidence has been debunked within hours. Again, why?

    awesome_lowlander ,

    I'm all for supporting women. Give them a chance to speak out, make sure they are fairly listened to and taken seriously. You've gone a step beyond that, you've already decided guilt and innocence and proclaimed it. More, you're doing so from a position of influence (yes, as a moderator of a large community, that's what you are). This is the sort of thing that libel charges get filed for (ok, not gonna happen at our current size, but you may want to start keeping that in mind.)

    Why would you default to that?

    Because that's the basis of our legal bloody system! Innocent until proven guilty! There's a thousand law professors out there who can explain it better and more eloquently than I could in a thousand years, but that's the gist of it.

    You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.

    That's correct. We do, however, need a conviction before stating it as fact instead of opinion.

    Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence

    I beg to differ. I have not sided with any party. What is it about people today that they seem unable to grasp the concept of neutrality?

    jeffw Mod ,
    @jeffw@lemmy.world avatar

    So what you’re saying is, all I need to do to get one of my exes jailed is get to know another disgruntled ex of theirs? Awesome!

    How is that neutrality? If you're going to troll, do better dude

    awesome_lowlander ,

    Troll? I was pointing out the issues in your logic. Was the blatant sarcasm not blatant enough for you?

    pageflight ,

    Thanks for the Times article link, interesting history for discounting women's claims specifically in rape cases.

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    Nah, it's Trial by Twitter for most of the last decade.

    frigidaphelion ,

    brain dead take

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • news@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •