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.
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.
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
Or this dude?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Sullivan
Lightning apparently can strike at least seven times if you’re Roy Sullivan.
Or, we could stick to our system of presuming innocence until guilt is proven.
I’m going to copy and paste my reply from elsewhere:
Of course we shouldn’t lock someone up based on an accusation but courts are imperfect. Many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit and other crimes are difficult to convince people on. It’s also highly unlikely Gaiman will ever go to a criminal trial over this, like so many other people who commit sexual assault. That’s why you don’t wait for a conviction to support women.
Estimates of false accusations are usually under 1 in 20. This article claims 2-10%. why would you default to that position? Again, we are not a court of law. You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.
Regardless, the evidence presented so far is more than sufficient for a conviction. In the Gaiman cases, we have multiple witnesses and contemporaneous evidence for both women. It’s not just 2 random people making claims. Why would this be a vast conspiracy of 2 women who faked contemporaneous evidence and both have multiple witnesses and physical evidence? What evidence do you have that all of their evidence is fake?
Edit: let’s go one step farther. The 2 women have witnesses and contemporaneous evidence. Gaiman made a claim that one woman had a memory disorder, which has already been proven false. Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence, you are siding with the one whose only evidence has been debunked within hours. Again, why?
I’m all for supporting women. Give them a chance to speak out, make sure they are fairly listened to and taken seriously. You’ve gone a step beyond that, you’ve already decided guilt and innocence and proclaimed it. More, you’re doing so from a position of influence (yes, as a moderator of a large community, that’s what you are). This is the sort of thing that libel charges get filed for (ok, not gonna happen at our current size, but you may want to start keeping that in mind.)
Why would you default to that?
Because that’s the basis of our legal bloody system! Innocent until proven guilty! There’s a thousand law professors out there who can explain it better and more eloquently than I could in a thousand years, but that’s the gist of it.
You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.
That’s correct. We do, however, need a conviction before stating it as fact instead of opinion.
Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence
I beg to differ. I have not sided with any party. What is it about people today that they seem unable to grasp the concept of neutrality?
Say it ain’t so 😥
I have no idea if he’s a bad guy or wrongfully accused…but these two stories don’t sound convincing at all.
So your addition to the conversation is that we should not have a conversation. Got it
Two separate unrelated people.
Both in their twenties
Invites them into second/third base consensual relations and then it turns into rough sex.
I think that it’s an absolutely reasonable assumption that he is into younger women and doesn’t stop after he gets the green light.
But the article is light on details, and he at least deserves to have his say in court over it.
I think that it’s an absolutely reasonable assumption that he is into younger women and doesn’t stop after he gets the green light.
Why do you this is an absolutely reasonable assumption?
Into younger women is pretty normal, but raping isn’t normal. Do you mean it’s a reasonable assumption given these accusations?
Not who you replied to, and Gaiman may be innocent, but we should listen and find out. The “absolutely reasonable assumption” is probably based on his age and how he was raised.
I don’t know how many men you dealt with that were raised with the mindset of “if she said yes once it means she says yes ALL THE TIME,” but some men feel that way. Hell a very famous and still popular movie has “Tell me more. Tell me more. Did she put up a fight?” In the opening of the movie. It seems kind of reasonable to me to assume being raised that “no” is something you have to “fight through” might mess with head.
I’m not trying to justify any actually actions. I’m just saying I would listen to the victims before I dismiss the accusations just because I like the art he makes.
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.
Sleeping with the nanny less than half your age isn’t a great start for a discussion of power dynamics in a sexual relationship.
I’m not going to assume anything either way, bo the women deserve to be heard, at the very least.
Agreed, but in my experience people in their early twenties can be surprisingly experienced and conscious kinksters, able to voice consent and negotiate intense situations. While people in their fourties can be incredibly insecure, unable to communicate their needs and insecurities, while still wanting to play.
It’s a matter of experience, self-awareness and skills, and those don’t come with age, but with work on yourself and education. We need so much more sex education and communication about these things.
The woman in question doesn’t seem to be an experienced kinkster though, and she should totally be heard in any case. But the age argument distracts from the real issues, I believe.
People in their forties who are also massive global celebrities? I doubt he was especially insecure.
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.
I’ll disagree about age. At 23, the pre-frontal cortex is still developing and won’t be finished until around 25.
It’s responsible for:
- Executive functions (planning, decision-making, problem-solving)
- Impulse control
- Emotional regulation
- Social interactions and behavior
There is a distinct imbalance between someone in their 60’s and someone in their early 20’s. I’m not saying it can’t be carefully and respectfully navigated, but it has to be acknowledged and accounted for.
It doesn’t sound like that happened here.
Then we have the power dynamic of a celebrity who is also your employer. Add in a healthy dose of fictive kinship due to the live-in nature of a nanny and you’re in a situation rife with the potential for abuse.
IIRC, that study didn’t conclude it stopped at 25, it expected it to stop at 18, but it kept going, and they ran out of funding at 25. A likely conclusion is that it never really stops, it’s just that what was measured wasn’t really development, but “change”.
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.
But he said in his statement that he’s a Gaiman.
