• 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"?

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.

Exactly as a wise man said "when you are rich they let you do it" You don't need consent you just go and start kissing them. Neil and Donald have something in common.
 
Well, then see the message above yours about what I think about pseudo-moralistic mob rule :p

It’s just a free-market economy.
The “mob” that you seem to be angry at is consumers. If the CEO thinks that it will lose money, they should adjust to that.
 
Prostitution is legal in England, so a contract of sex for accommodation or a holiday is legal. However, being a brothel keeper isn't, so it might be argued if you were the owner of the property and your tenant was having sex with you for a pecuniary benefit that would be illegal because you would be keeping a (very exclusive) brothel.
 
It might also be argued that Gaiman seems to have developed a predatory relationship towards more than one woman over whom he enjoyed some power. It might be further argued that this kind of behavior is bad, or even very bad. It might be further argued that society is not wrong to recoil in disgust at such revelations.

I think these arguments are much more important, and much more to the point, than the argument that Gaiman didn't technically do anything illegal.
 
Well, then we've been talking past each other. Because I was talking about the former, not the latter.
Which is why I pointed out that the former didn't happen, by anyone's account. Treating it like it did is just making stuff up.

Well, probably, but people enter illegal verbal contracts all the time.
All such contracts are void and unenforceable.

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?
Theeeeeeeeeeey caaaaaaaaan't. Like I said, threatening someone with eviction if they don't have sex with you is quid pro quo sexual harassment (at best). That's why we know they aren't "prostitutes", and are in fact victims of (at least) sexual harassment (provided that their accounts are accurate).

I mean, if what they're doing is illegal, doesn't it make more sense to lawyer up and turn the tables than acquiesce?
Does it come as news to you that people sometimes do not choose the most advisable course of action? I mean, you certainly didn't.
 
Well, then if "Theeeeeeeeeeey caaaaaaaaan't" coerce you to accept extra clauses, and it would be unenforceable anyway, then it's not coercion, is it?

That said, sure, sexual harassment it is then.
 
Last edited:
Well, then if "Theeeeeeeeeeey caaaaaaaaan't" coerce you to accept extra clauses, it's not coercion, is it?
No, that doesn't follow. If I stick a gun in your face and tell you to sign a contract or else, that contract is voided precisely because it is coerced. The ability to enter into an enforceable contract is not a necessary element of coercion.
 
No, that doesn't follow. If I stick a gun in your face and tell you to sign a contract or else, that contract is voided precisely because it is coerced. The ability to enter into an enforceable contract is not a necessary element of coercion.

Except what was he threatening them WITH? That he might give them a legal 2 months eviction notice, assuming it's actually a new clause? (Which would make it an allegation of an illegal act, namely, landlord harassment, so you'd figure SOMEONE would actually go to the police sooner or later. We're not talking about having Tony Soprano as a landlord to make you afraid to speak up.)

For coercion to work, the threat must be worse than the harm. In your gun-to-the head scenario, it works because presumably the contract is less bad than a bullet in the head. On the other hand, if someone says, sign to give me a kidney or I'll say some mean words to you, I'd tell them to *ahem* travel and copulate.

So what exactly was the threat to not only make them accept, but also keep them from going to the cops.
 
Last edited:
Also, speaking of making things up, are you SURE that it wasn't beforehand? Because the UK has, or at least had, a decades long and proud tradition of sex-for-rent as an upfront condition. They even had barely-veiled ads in the newspapers for that. And apparently enough tenants taking that deal. Unlike the USA, it wasn't something unimaginable, but something that did happen, and people were even advertising in newspapers. That is, until recently when they started treating it as an offence. (Which I suppose might be what prompted Gaiman to start writing hush-up checks.)
 
Except what was he coercing them WITH? That he might give them a legal 2 months eviction notice, assuming it's actually a new clause?
Yes, he was threatening her with eviction. There was no "new clause".

For coercion to work, the threat must be worse than the harm.
And apparently it was, to her. To quote the woman herself: "Wallner said: 'And he can say it was consensual. But why would I do that? It was because I was scared of losing my place', characterising Gaiman’s treatment of her as “sexual abuse.”
 
Yes, he was threatening her with eviction. There was no "new clause".

The sex would be the "new clause".

And apparently it was, to her. To quote the woman herself: "Wallner said: 'And he can say it was consensual. But why would I do that? It was because I was scared of losing my place', characterising Gaiman’s treatment of her as “sexual abuse.”

What I still don't hear is the part where he actually said that threat.

To use your gun example, there's a difference between me signing because you actually pulled out a gun, or even said you would, and me just being afraid that you might pull a gun.
 
Last edited:
The sex would be the "new clause".
It was not a "clause". It was the act coerced.

What I still don't hear is the part where he actually said that threat.
Maybe you should at least vaguely familiarize yourself with the accusations before deciding the women involved were prostitutes and not victims?

Wallner said that whenever she resisted his sexual advances, Gaiman would tell her Palmer wanted the house back where she lived with her three daughters, as well as the studio she worked in. Wallner recalled one occasion when she said Gaiman told her: ‘‘but you take care of me and I’ll take care of you”, understanding it to be a reference to what she called the “sexual trade”.
 
Prostitution is legal in England, so a contract of sex for accommodation or a holiday is legal. However, being a brothel keeper isn't, so it might be argued if you were the owner of the property and your tenant was having sex with you for a pecuniary benefit that would be illegal because you would be keeping a (very exclusive) brothel.

I very much doubt it. Paying your girlfriend's rent is not running a business. He would not have drawn any income from it.
 
No, that doesn't follow. If I stick a gun in your face and tell you to sign a contract or else, that contract is voided precisely because it is coerced. The ability to enter into an enforceable contract is not a necessary element of coercion.

Interesting, is it void ab initio or voidable if challenged in court?

(I'd always heard the latter.)
 
It’s just a free-market economy.
The “mob” that you seem to be angry at is consumers. If the CEO thinks that it will lose money, they should adjust to that.

Angry consumers indirectly in many cases.
Direct threat is advertisers pulling their ads because they don't want their product or company associated with a show.
 
Maybe you should at least vaguely familiarize yourself with the accusations before deciding the women involved were prostitutes and not victims?

Maybe you should at least vaguely familiarize yourself with what has been common wisdom since this was called JREF: I don't have any duty to do your research for you.

I was explicitly only commenting on what the information presented in this thread. The prostitution thing in fact explicitly in response to the phrasing of the quote in #27. Which mentioned nothing about her already being a tenant. But anyway, that message even contains the phrase, "the way it's phrased".

If you know what source proves it's something else, it's up to you to share that evidence. I don't even care if it's about sex or religion or whatever, it's not my job to slog through several podcasts to see that you're right.

If it worked like that, then religion would be downright unassailable, ever since they invented the "sophisticated theology" defence :p
 
For coercion to work, the threat must be worse than the harm. In your gun-to-the head scenario, it works because presumably the contract is less bad than a bullet in the head.
No, it just has to be perceived by the victim as worse. If Gaiman had tried it on me I would've been out of there like a shot, no matter what he offered me to 'make the threat less than the harm'.
 
Maybe you should at least vaguely familiarize yourself with what has been common wisdom since this was called JREF: I don't have any duty to do your research for you.
Christ. I’m not asking you to do my research. I’m pointing out that forming opinions without informing yourself about the basic allegations is just a waste of time.

You’re not doing skepticism here, you’re just valorizing your own ignorance.
 
Or you could lead with what exactly you know that I obviously don't, and save us both a bunch of time and pixels :p
 
Prostitution is legal in England, so a contract of sex for accommodation or a holiday is legal. However, being a brothel keeper isn't, so it might be argued if you were the owner of the property and your tenant was having sex with you for a pecuniary benefit that would be illegal because you would be keeping a (very exclusive) brothel.

It would be an unenforceable contract, no court would countenance someone having to have sex with someone for whatever reason if they don’t want sex. It would be rape if there was no consent, no matter what clauses are in a contract, no contract can waive those rights.
 
I've listened to the first hour of the 6 part podcast that broke the story. It was well done so far, and looked at both sides of the story and the difficult issues of consent.

It had a lot of information from the young NZ woman Scarlett who was the first to come forward. She was inexperienced and had no concept of family or belonging and didn't seem to be able to set boundaries or know what a loving, consenting, relationship was like, or how to say no.

It gets into the details of their first sexual encounter, and how she knew "it crossed boundaries" as she texted to a friend.

Gaiman was 61, she was 21, and this was in early 2022 at Gaiman's place in NZ where she'd been asked to be a nanny/au pair.

3 weeks into their relationship she was hospitalised and suicidal, and still hadn't been paid for her job for Gaiman and Palmer.

At one point of their relationship she passed out bleeding and in pain from BDSM.

There's a lot more but I feel like I'd have to type out a transcript to give you a proper report.
 
Listened to Part 2 - The Whatsapps.

Scarlett's case is complicated because, perhaps due to the nature of coercive control, her Whatsapp history with Gaiman makes the relationship seem consensual and almost like she is the instigator (due to trying to please him).

It's also complicated by the fact that New Zealand, where she made the report to police, had no coercive control laws.

She was dependent on him for emotional support, having no family, and a roof over her head.

Gaiman himself was suicidal for a few weeks when Scarlett made allegations of non-consent to a friend, Misma, who angrily messaged Amanda Palmer (NG's wife) who confronted Gaiman.

Gaiman told Scarlett this, saying how fragile he was, afraid she would "me too him". Scarlett denied saying that or that she'd made rape allegations, which is true, she hadn't, though her phone history with Misma shows her uncertainty and dislike of the relationship and sex acts with Gaiman.

Towards the end of the relationship (early 2023 about a year after it began in 2022), Gaiman sent Scarlett an NDA to sign. Scarlett took a few days then signed it, not reading it because she "didn't understand it). She didn't know it was backdated to before they met.

Again, much more in the podcast, and I can't type it all out.
 
In Part 3 - The Pond, they look at Gaiman's childhood as a scientologist in England, and how his father, David Gaiman was a leader in the CoS. Gaiman's first wife was and is a scientologist, as is his mother and a sister. David Gaiman was eventually deemed a "suppressive person" and a leaked document from the CoS accused David of "sexual misconduct".

The podcast explicitly and literally denied saying "like father like son". But I think his background is worth noting.

I didn't know, but Neil Gaiman eventually became an Operating Thetan, before leaving the CoS about when his writing career began.

The episode also says Scarlett went back to the police in early 2024 to see how the investigation was going. The police said they didn't have enough evidence to pursue charges. They hadn't interviewed Amanda Palmer. Gaiman says he hired a lawyer in NZ and offered to be questioned, but the police didn't interview him, I think due to Gaiman not being in the country.

The NZ police said they searched for other reports about Gaiman but that he had no priors. If they'd have interviewed Palmer, she's talked about 14 others.

Meanwhile, they mentioned 2 good friends of Gaiman who have denied he would do anything non-consensual.

One friend says she herself had a consensual BDSM relationship with him.

The next episode is about another woman making accusations of sexual abuse in the noughties when she was 18, a Florida zookeeper.

Neil Gaiman says that the two accusors' stories are similar in that the "messages contradict narratives".
 
Episode 4 - The Fan

The second woman to approach the podcasters/investigators is "K" who would be "repelled" to have her name be "forever linked to his".

Again, she was 18 when she met NG, he was 43. They met, along with her friends, at a book signing, then again, at another elsewhere. She and her friends email him via his website. She keeps doing it, telling him lots about herself. They have dinner, ending with kisses on cheeks. 6 months later K and a friend meet NG for icecream, and they end up at his place, with their own rooms, for the night. Gaiman says goodnight then comes back and asks them if they want sex, they say no.

When K turns 20, Gaiman ramps up his affections. They chat on the phone, he gives her a webcam, this goes on for 6 months, then he comes to Orlando and they have consensual sex.

Both K and S "were under his thumb", K as a besotted fan, S as his nanny, both dependant on him emotionally.

K looked after a disabled brother and her parents were splitting up. Both K and Scarlett were vulnerable.

Gaiman invited K to prestigious events but ignored her there. She was his secret girlfriend, he didn't tell Palmer about her.

K was proud to be his girlfriend, and "would do anything to stay his girlfriend ".

Again, the first time they had sex, like Scarlett, there was a romantic setting, but it "was painful, brutal". K doesn't say no.

K says Gaiman liked to use a belt on her, and to call him Master, same things as with Scarlett.

K and S have never met or spoken.

More gruesome details follow and I'm not sure I should write them. Something happened in Cornwall in April 2007 which NG denies but K says was "definitely" non-consensual.

Gaiman is disturbed by K's allegations. Doesn't answer questions put to his PR about attitudes to consent, maintaining boundaries, NDAs.

The podcasters talk to sexual assault lawyers and authors. In the UK, there can be no consent to bodily harm, it's a crime. In NZ it's case by case. In the US, the threshold for harm is higher than in the UK.

These first 4 podcasts were released in July. The next two episodes are from September 2024 and involve more women coming forward.
 
We are still at the we said, they said stage.

S&M sex is always going to be even more fraught for misunderstandings from both participants and those learning of such practices than vanilla sex.

(Just a note, in the UK they are correct that you can't consent to bodily harm but you are only going to be charged if you are engaging in homosexual S&M acts.)
 
Also, speaking of making things up, are you SURE that it wasn't beforehand? Because the UK has, or at least had, a decades long and proud tradition of sex-for-rent as an upfront condition. They even had barely-veiled ads in the newspapers for that. And apparently enough tenants taking that deal. Unlike the USA, it wasn't something unimaginable, but something that did happen, and people were even advertising in newspapers. That is, until recently when they started treating it as an offence. (Which I suppose might be what prompted Gaiman to start writing hush-up checks.)

Really? I'm British myself, and I've never heard of this.
 
Plenty of articles on that topic, but here's just two:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/apr/02/sex-for-rent-accommodation-rogue-landlords-campaign
https://www.generationrent.org/2021/11/18/sex_for_rent_ads/

key point from the second, according to a survey about 8% of women were offered some form of sex for rent agreement.

I didn't see anything in those articles about a 'decades-long and proud tradition'. Looked more like a recent, nasty and illegal practice to me.
 
Plenty of articles on that topic, but here's just two:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/apr/02/sex-for-rent-accommodation-rogue-landlords-campaign
https://www.generationrent.org/2021/11/18/sex_for_rent_ads/

key point from the second, according to a survey about 8% of women were offered some form of sex for rent agreement.

That does not indicate that such contracts are legal i.e.

The Ministry of Justice has previously said that offering accommodation in exchange for sex is inciting prostitution, an offence which can carry a sentence of up to seven years in jail.
 
I didn't see anything in those articles about a 'decades-long and proud tradition'. Looked more like a recent, nasty and illegal practice to me.

Yes, well, the "proud tradition" part may have been hyperbole.

The "decades long" part maybe slightly less so. A tenant survey from 2016 found that more than 100,000 women have been offered sex for rent in the prior year alone, around 250,000 women have been offered sex for rent in the last five years and more than 300,000 women have been offered sex for rent in the time that they have been renting. If it had been going on for more than 5 years in 2016, yeah, it's at the very least more than a decade at this point :p
 
Last edited:
Yes, well, the "proud tradition" part may have been hyperbole.

The "decades long" part maybe slightly less so. A tenant survey from 2016 found that more than 100,000 women have been offered sex for rent in the prior year alone, around 250,000 women have been offered sex for rent in the last five years and more than 300,000 women have been offered sex for rent in the time that they have been renting. If it had been going on for more than 5 years in 2016, yeah, it's at the very least more than a decade at this point :p

So not decades-long, not proud, and not legal.
Apart from that, then you were spot on. :rolleyes:
 
So other than not understanding hyperbole or generally anything other than strictly literal, like the big guy from Guardians Of The Galaxy, you're spot on :p
 
So other than not understanding hyperbole or generally anything other than strictly literal, like the big guy from Guardians Of The Galaxy, you're spot on : p

What was the point of the hyperbole? What exactly were you trying to say?

All of your remarks so far seem to be aimed at minimizing or dismissing Gaiman's (alleged) predatory and exploitative treatment of this woman.

When you say, in this context, that there's a tradition of men offering shelter in exchange for sex, I read it as you trying to portray the practice as normal and acceptable. I.e., of a piece with your other efforts to downplay Gaiman's behavior.

So. What exactly were you trying to say? How was your use of hyperbole supposed to enhance your rhetoric?
 
What was the point of the hyperbole? What exactly were you trying to say?

Just stylistic flourish, really. Same as when I start a sentence with "a long time ago in a galaxy far away" (which I did several times just this year on this board), it doesn't mean anything in particular.

Not everything has to have a deeper meaning.
 
Besides, whatever gave you the idea that "tradition" means "acceptable"? I mean, earlier this year I listed some Mafia traditions in the "family values" thread. Do you think I meant that those were acceptable? :p
 
Besides, whatever gave you the idea that "tradition" means "acceptable"? I mean, earlier this year I listed some Mafia traditions in the "family values" thread. Do you think I meant that those were acceptable? :p
Again, what's the relevance? This happened in New York, not the UK (where it also seems to be illegal). He started threatening her with eviction when she rebuffed his advances years after this woman and her then husband moved in, and only after they were divorced. The idea that it was an upfront agreement is highly implausible in light of these facts, and inconsistent with either person's account. And even if it had been, it would still be a transgression (and quite possibly a criminal act) on his part, not on hers.
 
Last edited:
Besides, whatever gave you the idea that "tradition" means "acceptable"? I mean, earlier this year I listed some Mafia traditions in the "family values" thread. Do you think I meant that those were acceptable? : p
I explained quite clearly in my post why, in the context of your other contributions to this thread, it seemed to me that you were appealing to tradition to further downplay Gaiman's behavior towards ths woman.

I haven't read the "family values" thread, so I have no opinion about that.
 
Back
Top Bottom