Okay, be for fucking real for a second. If we take Neil Gaiman's version of events at face value, he initiated a sexual relationship with his 6-year-old child's 21-year-old nanny within hours of meeting her, as a 61-year-old man who is also rich, famous, and influential.
He lived her lifetime two times over before she was even born. He was her employer. She was dependent on him and his wife for her housing. And he pursued a relationship with her despite all of those facts. And that's someone you think is a good person being unfairly accused of abusing his power?
If we go by Neil's account of the situation, the power dynamics are still so utterly skewed, and the situation is still so utterly creepy that I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that the relationship was "consensual." Powerful old men should not be sleeping with their young employees.
Quite frankly, any man who would engage in such a relationship and consider it consensual has too warped an understanding of consent to be trusted in his assessment of whether there was consent.
A man who isn't predatory and abusive would never have sought out this "relationship" to begin with. Much less coerced the girl in question into signing an NDA after the fact in exchange for paying her rent while she was struggling and even hospitalized with suicidal urges in the aftermath of their "relationship."
Neil's behaviour with Scarlett, even if we take his account as the truth, was utterly unacceptable. A 61-year-old man with enormous influence and resources should not be seeking reassurance and support about HIS mental health from a 21-year-old who was IN THE HOSPITAL ON SUICIDE WATCH.
Listening to his audio messages tells you everything you need to know: that he was manipulative, inappropriate, and careful. He guilts her into reassuring him repeatedly that she consented, that he did nothing wrong. He presents himself as suicidal because of the idea that she is "planning to 'MeToo' him." He makes her care for HIM and reassure HIM as if he is the vulnerable party. His messages to her show a man preoccupied with self-image. They show a man with awful boundaries. They show a predator who is very invested in his (self-)image as a "good guy."
Be for fucking real. What's more likely: that a famous and powerful man abused his power and crossed boundaries with young, vulnerable women, who he ADMITS TO ENGAGING IN SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH, or that these two women on separate continents with 20 years separating their experiences are engaged in a conspiracy to smear the name of a man with whom they had loving, consensual relationships? What's more likely? That a powerful man crafted a wholesome public persona while behaving reprehensibly behind closed doors, or that journalists conspired against him to destroy his image because he happens to support trans rights? BE FOR FUCKING REAL.
jacobvanloon
tangentwithtanner
pixelskylines
andulkaphoto
