• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

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.



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?"
 
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"?

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:
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?

Well, if the landlord gives you the legal notice period and all, I guess it's not. I can see your point.
 
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.

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:
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?
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.

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:
But if it's not actually illegal, then what is actually the outrage?
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.
 
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

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:
Again I ask, what is your point?

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:
And especially for Disney, Bob Iger has literally been documented to be as much of a Tinkerbellend
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:
Well, then see the message above yours about what I think about pseudo-moralistic mob rule :p
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 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?

No. I'm just saying that the proper way to change that was to actually make it illegal, rather than some fickle mob being possibly for and possibly against it this time, and some companies maybe listening to the mob this time, and maybe not.
 
No. I'm just saying that the proper way to change that was to actually make it illegal, rather than some fickle mob being possibly for and possibly against it this time.
That isn't what you are saying. You explicitly stated that that which is not illegal is "ok". That's been the thrust of your argument all along--that if Gaiman did nothing illegal, there's no problem.

You're now trying to retreat to a more defensible view in light of the evident flaws of the position you've taken.

And it's not true that the only proper way to effect change is to attempt to criminalize undesirable behaviors in any case. There's also an obvious contradiction between "If it isn't illegal it's ok" and "This (legally permissible) means of effecting change is improper (ie, not ok)".
 
Last edited:
No I'm not. It's literally a basic principle of the rule of the law that it's OK to do something if it's not illegal, and not be punished if it's not. As opposed to the fickle mob rule which resulted in several absurd acts for thousands of years straight. My favourite example being probably the guy who got exiled from ancient Athens because his opponent literally argued that he's TOO gay for Athens.

You can think differently, but then take it to your congresscritter. Trying to enforce mob rule, e.g., via cancel culture, just isn't how the rule of law was supposed to work.

I mean, sure, you can think the guy is an ass. You're absolutely free to. So what? I mean, probably at at least one neighbour thinks I'm an ass because I don't sort my garbage the way they want me to. Another thinks I'm an ass because I smoke in my own apartment, and he doesn't like the smell when passing before my door. It's not even hypotheticals, but actually RL examples I had. The latter literally went as far with the harassment over that, as to report that I died in my apartment, so I come home to see the cops, firemen and an ambulance being done with breaking into my home.

But... SO WHAT? It's not my duty to conform to every random guys idea of morality, down to whether I should be allowed to smoke in my own home. Just go and make it illegal, if you think I should stop, and can convince enough people of that.
 
Last edited:
No I'm not. It's literally a basic principle of the rule of the law that it's OK to do something if it's not illegal, and not be punished if it's not.
I don't really get the sense that you know what "rule of law" means at all. It's expected that we will not be punished by the state for acts that are not illegal, but little follows from that about how private actors will treat us, and we're not talking about punishment (at the hands of the state or otherwise) in any case. We're talking about companies shelving projects.

You can think differently, but then take it to your congresscritter. Trying to enforce mob rule, e.g., via cancel culture, just isn't how the rule of law was supposed to work.
You're attempting to force a false dichotomy between "writing to your representative" and "mob rule." There are many other options, and I see no evidence of a "mob rule" effort to force anyone's hand in this particular case.

But... SO WHAT? It's not my duty to conform to every random guys idea of morality, down to whether I should be allowed to smoke in my own home. Just go and make it illegal, if you think I should stop, and can convince enough people of that.
You're just bragging about being unreasonable here. You will be persuaded by nothing short of force. It's also a bit odd that you're inveighing against mob rule and then giving a very "mob rule" account of democratic legitimization.

But you haven't addressed the contradiction I pointed out at all. Why should I take the rather totalitarian step of seeking to criminalize all behavior I regard as undesirable if I have other options available (for example, trying to persuade people not to do something via the language of reason)? Shouldn't your view that this is the only justifiable course of action be met with a resounding "So what?"
 
Last edited:
Well, maybe even that is me going off track. All I really wanted to say originally is that if you've made a deal where you get some advantages in exchange for sex, congrats, you're a prostitute not a victim. We could debate in which other direction the morality goes from there or how it connects to legality, but a victim you are not. Not just legally, but even morally, I absolutely don't see the analogy between "someone forced me to do X" and "I accepted to do X in exchange for some remuneration." In the latter case I might sympathise with whatever origin sob-story might have driven yourself to it, but it still means you chose to make that deal, not that someone forced you to.

Like, not even just for sex. I also don't see an equivalence between, dunno, "someone coerced me to take one of my kidneys" and "I sold a kidney." I don't actually care if it's from a legal perspective or whatever moral framework you wish, the latter doesn't make you a victim.
 
Last edited:
Well, maybe even that is me going off track. All I really wanted to say originally is that if you've made a deal where you get some advantages in exchange for sex, congrats, you're a prostitute not a victim.
And this is also just wrong. In general, that would make you a victim of quid pro quo sexual harassment in an employment or tenancy relationship. Do you honestly think the boss can make blowing him under the desk a formal job requirement? That there would be no element of coercion involved there, even if it were legal?
 
It probably IS sexual harassment, but you still have the choice whether to accept it or not, so no, I don't see it as coercion. Again, especially for tenancy, there are tens of thousands of other landlords, and a lot are even impersonal companies, and the vast majority DON'T ask you to spread them. They might be farther away from where you want to be, or more expensive, or smaller, but they exist and are probably the majority. If you chose to accept to pay in sex for one that suits you better, instead of, dunno, reporting the harassment, then yes, congrats, you are a prostitute in my moral system.
 
co·er·cion
The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it as any more of a case of using force or threats than any other agreement.

I mean, is a landlord coercing someone to get rid of of their pets, if said landlord put a "no pets allowed" in the contract?
 
It's a question of alternatives:

yes, a landlord putting a "no pets" clause in is absolutely coercing a tenant if said tenant has no other option for a place to stay, financially and/or geographically.

Same with employment contracts: if you can be quite certain that you can quit your job and find an equivalent quickly, then almost nothing that your employer asks for is coercion, since there is practically no cost to refusal. But if you can't the cost to current and future income can be life threatening.

If you want fewer cases like these, provide free housing and a decent UBI.
 
I mean, is a landlord coercing someone to get rid of of their pets, if said landlord put a "no pets allowed" in the contract?
No, because--crucially--I can read the lease before agreeing to it. I don't move into an apartment and then find out if I'm allowed to have pets. "Agree to this no-pets addendum to your current lease or you'll be evicted" would be coercive.

There's nothing to suggest that either of these women entered into their respective employment/housing agreements with the knowledge that they would be expected to, at Neil Gaiman's pleasure, provide him with sexual gratification as a condition of employment or tenancy.

And if there were such a condition in the lease or employment contract, it would be unenforceable, by virtue of being illegal.

There's telling on yourself, and then there's making **** up so that you can tell on yourself.
 
This sounds like perfectly normal dominance play. I personally don't get the choking fetish, but a lot of people enjoy it, when it is consensual.
Indeed. But there seems to have been a real world power imbalance in the relationships.
 
Isn't there a real world power imbalance in quite a few, if not the majority, of relationships?
There's a difference, IMO, between a healthy and fully consensual dom-sub relationship, and the kind of coerced compliance that this situation appears to be.
 
No, because--crucially--I can read the lease before agreeing to it. I don't move into an apartment and then find out if I'm allowed to have pets. "Agree to this no-pets addendum to your current lease or you'll be evicted" would be coercive.

Well, then we've been talking past each other. Because I was talking about the former, not the latter.

And if there were such a condition in the lease or employment contract, it would be unenforceable, by virtue of being illegal.

Well, probably, but people enter illegal verbal contracts all the time.


But then that also brings up the question of how can one be coerced with that, unless it's a deal with the mafia. If a landlord can't legally unilaterally add a no-pets addendum -- and yes, they can't -- please explain to me slowly how can they add a "pussy required" one? I mean, if what they're doing is illegal, doesn't it make more sense to lawyer up and turn the tables than acquiesce? I mean, I know I'd get a dictaphone and a lawyer if my landlord tried to add a "bend over" clause :p
 
Last edited:
There's a difference, IMO, between a healthy and fully consensual dom-sub relationship, and the kind of coerced compliance that this situation appears to be.

I don't mean that sort of relationship.

In nearly all relationships there will be an imbalance of status, financial stability, intellect, experience, assets or the like. And I don't mean just romantic (or "romantic") relationships. Between employer and employee, between contractor and contracted, even between friends or colleagues, there will be an imbalance in power in some way. That's just the way life is.
 
I stand corrected.

But then the way it's phrased, she agreed to a deal where she'd get a place to stay AND 275K in exchange for sex. Doesn't that qualify as prostitution? I mean, sure, it would make Gaiman guilty of soliciting, but still.

The 275K was not negotiated upfront; it was the amount Gaiman was willing to pay to get her to keep quiet.
 
Back
Top Bottom