Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

HansMustermann said:
That if you agreed to have some kind of advantages in return (or "consideration" as it's called in contract law) in exchange for sex, you're literally just a prostitute, not a rape victim.

And yes, as every law student is taught, consideration can be ANYTHING, even as low as one corn of pepper. You can void a contract if it's "you give me X for nothing", but "you give me the Taj Mahal in exchange for a corn of pepper", is a valid contract if both sides agreed to it.

NB, I'm not using prostitute as an insult or demeaning in any way. They're hard-working members of society just like anyone else. They can keep their head high. But they're not the same as rape victims.

Is all I'm saying.
Click to expand...



It's something. This has been memetically tackled with "How horrible is the world, that keeps women down so things like prostitution, or having sex with a powerful producer, or even being the one bringing it up, is seen as a viable option of last resort?"
 
HansMustermann said:
Look, let's skip the house. Let me give you a RL scenario.

A long time ago, in galaxy far a... err... just in the early 2000' I was drinking with a friend of mine, and it may have been half past two bottles of vodka, and here comes this doozy: he's pondering whether to marry or just have a prostitute on retainer. Apparently he'd been seeing a hot prostitute for a while (Czech, if I rememeber right; but that plays no role) and really liked her. Sounds like ye olde love story, but the guy's proposal to her isn't marriage, but "How much would I have to pay you to have sex only with me, every day?" (And that's also when I learned that choking on Vodka really hurts.) Apparently she said "2000 euro a month." (Again, this was early 2000's.) Which he could afford, hence wondering if he should go with that.

He was also open to letting her live in one of the spare rooms, IIRC, but if not, you know, just show up at 8pm, get screwed, take a shower and get the hell out.

(Classy, I know.)

Now the deal fell through, but for the scope of this exercise, let's assume they shook the hand on that.

Let's say that two years later, she decides she no longer wants to have sex with him. (Which, knowing the guy, wouldn't surprise me.)

Is he under any obligation to keep paying her? Is it coercion if he says, "well, I'm not gonna keep paying you, if you don't spread the legs"?
Click to expand...

I wasn't doing a gotcha. I was just pointing out that, following this reasoning, the popular conception of sexual "coercion" by a landlord cannot ever be actual coercion. Unless you can come up with a scenario where it is?
 
@Beerina
The world is horrible, yes.

But I don't see this as a last resort. At every point where I've rented a flat in the past, selling my ass wasn't the only option. Nor of anyone I've ever heard from. There is no cartel or conspiracy of landlords to all demand sex. If one does, ick, then just pick another.

But if you chose the one where the sex is a convenient payment to get what you want, then congrats, you're a prostitute :p
 
Last edited:
Olmstead said:
I wasn't doing a gotcha. I was just pointing out that, following this reasoning, the popular conception of sexual "coercion" by a landlord cannot ever be actual coercion. Unless you can come up with a scenario where it is?
Click to expand...

Well, if the landlord gives you the legal notice period and all, I guess it's not. I can see your point.
 
HansMustermann said:
That if you agreed to have some kind of advantages in return (or "consideration" as it's called in contract law) in exchange for sex, you're literally just a prostitute, not a rape victim.
Click to expand...

Nobody is claiming Gaiman raped them. Specifically, nobody is claiming that the woman who alleges that Gaiman offered her housing in exchange for sex was a rape victim.

Anyway, I'm glad that's settled.
 
Oh, OK, so Disney and Amazon cancelled him and people are distancing themselves from him just to virtue-signal that they're above that kind of debauchery? Kinda like why they put the scarlet letter on women in puritanical colonial times, except the this time on men? Yeah, come to think of it, I have no problem believing that about corporations. Glad that we cleared that out.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Oh, OK, so Disney and Amazon cancelled him and people are distancing themselves from him just to virtue-signal that they're above that kind of debauchery?
Click to expand...
No, they're shelving projects in response to allegations of predatory and abusive behavior. Characterizing that as "debauchery" is just evidence that you're not approaching the topic in good faith.
 
I understand the temptation to start a philosophical debate about the nature of prostitution and why sex for favors is taboo but other labor for favors isn't, but... White knighting for Neil Gaiman probably isn't the play.
 
mumblethrax said:
No, they're shelving projects in response to allegations of predatory and abusive behavior. Characterizing that as "debauchery" is just evidence that you're not approaching the topic in good faith.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what the prestige was telling me: there was nothing illegal there. I just trusted him. Take it with him if you wish.

But if it's not actually illegal, then what is actually the outrage?
 
theprestige said:
I understand the temptation to start a philosophical debate about the nature of prostitution and why sex for favors is taboo but other labor for favors isn't, but... White knighting for Neil Gaiman probably isn't the play.
Click to expand...

I'm not white knighting for anyone, much less for an author who's not actually among my favourites. But you just literally told me that nothing illegal happened, and nobody even alleged it happened. So, then, what exactly makes you or for that matter Bob Iger want to oppose him, if it's not just aligning to bark in the same direction as the COOL puppies? That he got more sex that you did? Or? :p
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
But if it's not actually illegal, then what is actually the outrage?
Click to expand...
That his behavior, if we credit the accounts of these women, is predatory and abusive.

It's not necessary for such behavior to be illegal/prosecutable/prosecuted in order for it to be considered anathema.

As an obvious example, it's perfectly legal to be a virulent anti-Semite in the US. You should not be surprised, however, if denying the holocaust means you won't be invited back to portray the dad in the next season of a ABC's Family With Kids. Characterizing this as "virtue-signaling in response to free speech", meanwhile, would be a transparently bad faith argument.
 
HansMustermann said:
I'm not white knighting for anyone, much less for an author who's not actually among my favourites. But you just literally told me that nothing illegal happened, and nobody even alleged it happened. So, then, what exactly makes you or for that matter Bob Iger want to oppose him, if it's not just aligning to bark in the same direction as the COOL puppies? That he got more sex that you did? Or? : p
Click to expand...

I've gotten enough sex to tell the difference between predatory and non predatory attempts at getting laid.

But no, thanks for the personal insult. I can't help but notice that sexual experience is a matter of import to you. So much that you allege the lack as a jibe against dissent from your opinions.

Again I ask, what is your point?
 
@mumblethrax
Actually, I'm very much convinced that almost any CEO doesn't actually give a flip about if you're even the literal reincarnation of Hitler, or even the Antichrist, firstborn of Satan, unless it affects their bottom line, e.g., by how you fit or don't fit their posing for corporate image.

And especially for Disney, Bob Iger has literally been documented to be as much of a Tinkerbellend -- you know, acting as if he'll literally die if he's not in everyone's mind -- as Elon Musk. We're talking about a guy whose feud with Chapek started when Chapek, who was CEO at the time, didn't sit and look at pics of Iger's yacht and other flexes under the guise of briefing for a meeting, but went to the back of the plane to actually read the notes. That much of a narcissistic attention whore. Just, he chose to be a lame poser for the other side of the spectrum than Musk, to get his fix of attention.

So, yeah, I seriously don't think that this was about anything else than virtue signalling for attention. Unless, I guess, Iger actually did feel insulted that someone else got more sex than him :p
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Again I ask, what is your point?
Click to expand...

That the whole point of rule of the law is that it's actually ok to do what's not illegal. Rather than it being a capital offense to do whatever the mob didn't like this time, like in Socrates's time :p

You think it's predatory enough that people shouldn't do it? Sure. Write your congresscritter.

And sure, Disney can also say they have the freedom of press and freedom of association, and they do. But I hope I can be excused if it comes across about as unconvincing coming from a Tinkerbellend like Iger and his company, as when stuff comes from Musk :p
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
And especially for Disney, Bob Iger has literally been documented to be as much of a Tinkerbellend
Click to expand...
I genuinely do not care about what you think about Bob Iger. This is just a distraction from the bad argument you were attempting to make.
 
Well, then see the message above yours about what I think about pseudo-moralistic mob rule :p
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Well, then see the message above yours about what I think about pseudo-moralistic mob rule :p
Click to expand...
You are not arguing against pseudo-moralistic mob rule, you are arguing against the possibility of holding moral values at all. Your unlettered account of the "rule of law" implies that marital rape was ok until it was criminalized. No, it wasn't ok. It was just legal. I mean, under what possible grounds can I seek to change the law if I'm not permitted to say that there's something wrong with the status quo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom