#Neil Gaiman is a serial rapist

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

If there are implicit or explicit consequences for saying no to sex, such as losing your job, or housing, then yes simply isn't a real yes.

This means that if a landlord "has sex with" his tenant, it's rape.

It means if an employer "has sex with" his employee, that's rape.

And it means that if a man "has sex with" his employee who is also his tenant, as Neil Gaiman has admitted to doing with two separate women, that is most certainly rape. Add onto that the emotional upset and extreme financial vulnerability both of them were dealing with, the youth of the one, and the fact the other had three children, and there's just no way that this was consensual at all.

This is literally if you don't believe a word they say and only take his side of the story at face value.

If you do listen to them, then you add on the fact that Gaiman undressed himself and got into a bathtub with the nanny he'd met only hours prior and assaulted her there. You add on the fact that he coerced a mother of three into blowing him or being evicted (and when she stopped responding to his sexually explicit messages, he did indeed evict her and her children). You add on the very young female fan who alleges he raped her. You add on the extreme age difference between him and that young woman, and between him and the nanny. You add on that he made them sign NDAs. You add on his enjoyment of violence against them. You add on the other young woman who alleges he forcibly kissed her. You add on that these women have no relation to one another and that these allegations span decades.

The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn if you don't completely hate women is that at best, Neil Gaiman is an opportunistic and careless rapist. He is blind to power dynamics, refuses to take responsibility, and is therefore unsafe to be around any women or girls. Especially those who are particularly vulnerable or under his direct power. At worst, he is a calculating and manipulative rapist who directly engineers situations so that women will be uniquely vulnerable to him and then he takes full advantage.

Which kind of rapist he is depends on whose side you believe: theirs or his. But he's a rapist regardless and deserves jail at the very least, and I wouldn't be sad to learn he died (I'd rejoice). Personally, for every woman who comes forward, I'm suspecting there are several more, and while victims in general do often get some details confused or panic and add/remove certain parts of the story for fear of not being believed, I'm going to hold their word as far more credible than his.

[darklinaforever]

You think Neil Gaiman, a serial rapist, is going to make a good tv show while he’s currently preparing for court?

Why am I only getting bad news this weekend ?!

I was not aware of these accusations. I just did my research and it appears to be two accusations.

On the other hand, there is still what we call the presumption of innocence, so until this matter is over, let's avoid insulting Neil Gaiman from Serial Rapist.

I will continue to learn about this case and until I don't learn more about it, and that a verdict is not officially pronounced I will certainly remain neutral, as I always do in these cases.

Anyway, I was basically talking about the fact that Neil Gaiman managed to get The Sandman renewed by Netflix despite everything. So who knows, maybe he negotiated with Netflix before these accusations came out ? That doesn't change anything about my basic point.

In any case, even if he is found guilty, we will never be able to erase (and we should never in my opinion) the fact that he wrote great works and participated in great shows.

[andythecorsair]

Putting Rowling in the same league as a serial rapist is sick

And yet they're equally cancelled and, according to some, she is responsible for much bad feeling towards trans people that has reportedly resulted in violence, self-harm, and deaths.

You may believe that or not, but my point about making one's own decisions about the ways her actions have retroactively affected her work remains the same as what I said about Neil Gaiman. I wasn't putting them in the same category at all, other than to say that the effect on the reader is the same.

[nebty]

Wow I hate it here.

At this point Good Omens getting cancelled once and for all will be worth it if I never have to read another mealy-mouthed excuse for Neil Gaiman Serial Rapist’s disgusting actions ever again.

[recoord]

The importance of the allegations against Neil Gaiman being public

Claire on the podcast: Am I Broken: Survivor Stories.

S4 Ep2 - Claire "I Ignored It and I Believed Him Because He's the Storyteller [Neil Gaiman]"

"There are a few reasons why I'm coming forward now. And honestly, most of them have to do with how things went that first time that I tried. Um, that was back in 2019 that I first tried to share my story, and I reached out to a handful of journalists and I had several conversations off the record, but... Yeah, that message I got, across the board, was pretty much that what happened to me wasn't enough to establish a pattern of behavior. Because I was just one person, and back then everyone was looking for a serial rapist, right, like not one-off creeps."

"So when the journalist said what happened to you isn't enough to establish a pattern of behavior, what I heard, of course, was that what happened to you wasn't enough. And I was really shaken by that experience."

"It turns out – I wasn't the only one. Uh, three weeks ago from the date of this recording, uh, two other women came forward with allegations against him of rape and sexual assault. And one is – was in 2002, and the second in 2022. So my experience falls right in the middle of that, in 2012, and – that's a pattern! So, I decided to come forward, and ... knowing what I know now, I – I wish I'd come forward sooner, like I – no – (sigh) it just – it broke my heart hearing how one of the victims, Scarlett, had been googling "neil gaiman sexual assault" when she was trying to piece together what had happened to her, because I did the same thing! For years!"

"I was – I felt so alone, back then, and I don't want any of his victims to feel that way ever again. So, I'm sharing my experience, in solidarity, to support those women who've come forward and the people who will, and the people who can't. And... I'm also doing this for myself, as a... continuation of my healing. And I've never told my story so completely before. And... I'm choosing to do that through this podcast, because in this space, unlike in most spaces, it's not about him. It's about me, and my story."

Credits for the transcript to ErsatzHaderach Thanks a lot!

[grumpy-gran]

Reactions from the SFF community

Have there been many? [Just been swimming the internet void to track them for my own sanity (?) as I hyperfixate on this issue and its lack of coverage.] Here are the two I know of:

John Scalzi -

"I learned about the sexual assault allegations involving Neil Gaiman at the same time as everybody else. I don’t know any more about it than anyone else. Everything I have read about it to this point makes me angry and unhappy and sad. I understand there are people who want a different public statement from me about this than Gaaaah what the actual fuck. Maybe those people are better at processing bad news involving a friend. In any event, money is off to RAINN."

And then there's Monica Byrne, who has been engaging with the topic on Twt pretty regularly:

"I’m still reconciling the fact that someone I knew as a kindly, bumbling, absent-minded older author friend is actually a sadistic serial rapist of young women. It is honestly very hard to reconcile. But I don’t use that as an excuse to not believe them."

Admittedly, I am not tuned into the SFF community at all, so I may have missed a few. Feel free to make note of them.

[incorrectquoteswwdits]

even more allegations, making FIVE that we know of.

Guy is a fucking monster and he shouldn’t be allowed to ever have a good day ever again.

@staff can’t you do anything about @neil-gaiman at all? I know we don’t have specific posts or evidence of him using tumblr for anything against its TOS, but he’s a known serial sexual predator, abuser, and rapist who preys on young women, who tend to be the primary demographic of this site.

He should be banned and his blog should be terminated! He shouldn’t be allowed to remain on this site at all, even if he’s not active/lurking in the background.

terribly sorry for his victims, I’m sure there are definitely more now. It breaks my heart knowing that so many kept it in for so long, and apparently that so many people KNEW that he was at best, creepy this entire time.

[this-is-a-podcast-fanblog]

neil gaiman was revealed to be a serial rapist and you guys are on here patting each other on the back for enjoying good omens and saying "well there's not definitive proof yet" i hate you all so much

[goldfinchwrites]

sharing neil gaiman quotes? still? in this day and age? inspirational quotes from serial rapist neil gaiman? seriously?

[philosopherking1887]

Was giving one mutual a pass, but when you reblog something from "Electronic Intifada" decrying "Zionist sympathizers," that's the last straw.

Seriously, what do you people actually think "Zionist" means? If you think it means approving of everything the Israeli government and military do, or being a territorial maximalist who wants Israel to annex the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or being a religious fundamentalist who believes that the Jewish people have a right to the whole territory because God literally promised it to them -- then I might be able to excuse the way people use the word as if it's the most morally horrendous thing you can be, and exposing, e.g., Neil Gaiman as a Zionist would be like exposing him as a serial rapist. But none of those things are what the word means.

Being a Zionist means you support the continued existence of the Jewish state. People who favor a two-state solution can be described as Zionists. Being an anti-Zionist means you want the Jewish state to cease to exist -- regardless of what would happen to the 7 million Jews living there (most of whom were born there; who constitute more than 1/3 of the surviving Jewish population in the world) or how most Jews in the world feel about it.

I am a Zionist because I believe a two-state solution is the only possible solution. I despise Benjamin Netanyahu and am horrified by what the Israeli military is doing in Gaza. Am I beyond redemption because I actually give a shit what happens to Israeli Jews and I don't think the mass murder or displacement of millions of Jews in the name of "decolonization" is any morally better than the mass murder or displacement of Palestinians?

In conclusion: either learn what words mean before you hurl them around like slurs, OR, if you do know what they mean and are using them that way anyway, take your bloodthirsty Jew-hatred and shove it up your ass.

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

I hope Neil Gaiman knows that even if the extremely flawed justice system finds him not-guilty and he decides to rear his ugly head back here, at least one corner of this site is not letting it go. He's a rapist by his own admission of what happened.

[rosalesbeausderholle]

Do not take this the wrong way because I do believe JK Rowling is a horrible person, but also kind of insane that people are having debates about the ethics of still liking books you loved as a kid like HP meanwhile the fandoms based on Neil Gaiman’s works, you know the SERIAL RAPIST, are here unbothered and thriving like??? I'd think at least some people would at least virtue signal about how they're not going to read his books/watch his shows anymore but there's nothing

[mask131]

I saw your Greek Mythology masterpost, and wanted to hear your thoughts on an idea that's been swimming around in my head for awhile.

I've been inspired by Rick Riordan, because of course I have, and I like the idea of gods in the modern world.

The modern ideas of the gods are very different from the ancient interpretations, but that's kinda by design, no? Gods are fluid concepts that adapt with the culture that worships them, and our culture is very different from Ancient Greece.

I want to see the gods in a story where they're forced to basically "adapt or die." They need to adapt to the modern world or lose their importance.

Since it's low hanging fruit, I'll use Zeus as an example of what I mean. He's both the god of justice and very rapey, which contradict by our modern standards. In my concept, he either needs to adapt (stop being so rapey) or die (lose one of his most important deific domains).

This would reconcile the dissonance between the "original" gods and our modern interpretations, since that's basically the point of the story.

Also, to add more pressure on the gods, there's probably a younger generation of gods that could replace them if they fail to adapt. I struggle to believe that the gods stopped banging each other and having kids just because their worship fell out of fashion. There's definitely some newer gods running around. This could even connect to the myth/prophecy of Athena's younger brother.

So, this is basically the basic of my take on the Greek gods in the modern world. Thoughts?

Ps. Congrats on being my first ask ever

:3 Being someone's first ask is always such a cute honor. :3 You can't see it, but I'm blushing

Don't worry about someone accusing you of copying Rick Riordan by "placing gods in the modern world". Rick Riodan is just the last author in a long line. Neil Gaiman did it before with Sandman and American Gods. The Wonder Woman comics did it. Pratchett did it in Discworld ; Douglas Adam did it in The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul... And there's works about this idea dating back to the early 20th century.

However that being said, reading your outline strongly brings to mind American Gods by Neil Gaiman which is precisely about this - a generational conflict between older, traditional gods that are about to die from lack of worship, and a newer, younger generation of deities based on modern concepts (television, internet, cars, stock market...). So probably go check this novel to find more inspiration or see what was already done so that you can use the things that were not done.

For example I adore your idea that "The gods didn't stop banging" - having the ancient Greek gods give birth to new gods more adapted to the world or part of modernity is an absolutely cool idea that to my knowledge has never been done before (as outside of demigods and heroes, most works about Greek mythology in modern days just have the god stop having children with each other for some reason...)

Plus this is literaly what Greek mythology was about, generational conflict. It is filled with this. The Titans overthrew the primordial order of Ouranos. The Olympians destroyed the rule of the Titans. Zeus had to constantly fight not to get overthrown by his children. And even among mankind it is a constant struggle of younger ones overthrowing the old. I think you have something going on with this idea of a younger generation of gods. Why doesn't the Greek mythology simply continues in the modern world? A lot of potential here.

After that, when it comes to your example of Zeus and his "rapist" persona, I strongly suggest you go take a look at all the scholarly analysis and expert texts about Zeus to find the delightful implications of each of the gods traits. (And this is true for all the other gods). I made a post about Zeus and his immense lust and why it is not like people thought and why the Greek Zeus wasn't as much of a rapist as people painted him out to be (the real serial rapist was the Roman Jupiter, the Greek Zeus was much safer, though still a man-whore and a constant cheater). It is my "Why does Zeus has such a messy love life?" post, with a first part here and a second one here. (But maybe you saw them before since they were in my old masterpost)

And in them I reminded people of something that all analysis books and advanced manuals about Greek mythology explained (at least in France - I definitively need to translate on this website some excerpt from French texts about Greek mythology) - why is Zeus such a lustful guy who can't keep his d*ck in his pants? And it isn't just because he is lustful by nature - there is a deep religious reason behind this (just like behind all of the gods' characterization). Zeus title is "Father of Gods", "Father of Men", "Father of the World". Zeus isn't just a king - he is the archetypal father, the universal father. And this isn't just a fanciful title, it is one of his fundamental aspects, meaning it is in his nature to constantly "give birth" and find companions to spawn gods and men. The same way Ouranos gave birth to three different species in one go ; the same way Kronos had many children and couldn't stop having them despite the prophecy - in Greek mythology there is this topic that the king needs to procreate, as the ruler of the universe is also the fundamental procreation power that keeps giving birth to the other deities that will shape the universe ; and to the heroes that will save and civilize said universe. Zeus' role as a cosmic, endless father can even be pointed out in how he is one of the rare (if not the only) male god in Greek mythology that has the power to LITERALY give birth to children - to Athena through his head, to Dionysos through his thight, pointing out that his role and function WILL make him give birth to children even if women aren't around to do the job.

And once you consider this fact, the consequences and possibilities you brought forward become very deep, very fascinating and a true gold mine. In the post Me-too world, Zeus (Zeus/Jupiter if you decide to take the Greek and Roman deities as one, though myself I like to keep them separate) literaly is perceived and seen as the symbol of all those powerful tyrannical men of patriarchy who keep enforcing their lust onto women. Which is already a remnant of an ancient mindset from long-gone society (again in Greece women had no rights and no freedom) - but if Zeus needs to stop sleeping around... This actually doesn't just bother him because he is sex-driven. It will bother him or cause problems because his title is the one of the father, and he is a procreation/creation force. A sterile father is a useless father - like the Fisher King of the Arthurian legend. What does it mean? Does it mean he will have to find other ways to create gods and heroes? Does it mean he will need to retire? Does it mean his entire personality and attributes will change? Does it mean another "Father" will arise? Does it mean the male-led world of the Greek pantheon will be reversed as a cosmic "Mother" take the first role?

Of course it is for you to find out - but what I am trying to say here is that when exploring such an idea as yours, you have a full and open world of endless possibilities. If you ever feel restricted and limited don't be - because gods aren't just characters. They are poetic concepts, political implications, religious metaphors, sacred entities, with each of their attribute, each of their personality trait, each of their relationship being deeply symbolic of something. Do the gods in modern day adapt to the modern society and cultures? Do they still maintain their old views and symbols from Ancient Greece into the modern world? It is for the creator to decide - but if you need inspiration or to help build anything else, just consider how changing a god or goddess attribute actually touches them deeply into their very function and essence, and how it is all tied to a question of culture and religion. I think you'll find all character and plot development coming naturally to you in such a way.

Maybe it wasn't the answer you were expecting sorry about that X) But I am definitively looking forward for more of your project in the future, and if you want to chat more about this don't hesitate - I am always encouraging people to spin more and more stories about Greek mythology!

[yibennianyaji]

The Maxx: 90s Feminism Time Capsule

The joke goes that MTV once played music videos, but for my money their more interesting achievement was the two decades long attempt to carve out a niche in American animation that would target an older audience. The two big success stories of this venture are Beavis and Butthead and its far superior spinoff Daria, along with cult darlings Aeon Flux and Clone High. And then there’s The Maxx, a series of 13 ten minute episodes quite fittingly aired during a programming block called “Oddities.” For it is a strange little show, a mixed media conglomeration of early CGI, traditional animation, and direct translation of comic panels akin to the modern motion comic. It’s also a dense time capsule of 90s psychology and feminism, always intriguing even when it bites off more than it can chew.

The story, recapped at the beginning of every episode, goes something like this: there’s a “freelance social worker” named Julie Winters, who was once a university student before a traumatic assault moved her to change life directions; there’s a homeless man in a mask called “The Maxx,” who has visions of a primal land called the Outback where he’s a hunter and Julie is the Jungle Queen he serves; and there’s a shadowy mastermind called Mr. Gone, a serial rapist who seems to know about Maxx’s “Outback” and Julie’s past, and likes calling her up after he’s murdered somebody.

The first half of the series is largely framed as Maxx observing Julia and working through his confusion as he tries to square his phasing into the Outback, especially since it’s often unclear where hallucinations end and bleeding between realities begins. These early episodes (covers two standalone comics and then the first 11 issues of The Maxx comic’s 35 issue run) are less interested in their characters than they are in tackling Big Ideas and the landscape of comic books they fit into.

At first the stories seem to be an invocation of the popular 90s comic book monomyth: a world of complex social decay and misery that can ultimately be solved by one guy with ham fists and thighs the size of trashcans beating the crap out of a personified foe. Spawn and Punisher both get veiled nods, and there’s a sniffy sort of knock on Neil Gaiman’s Sandman comics (which may be just for the hell of it, since series co-writer Bill Messner-Loebs penciled the first five issues of said series – y’know, the ones that feel so at odds with what the series became). And Maxx himself carries more than a whiff of Rorschach, a discarded and mentally unstable transient who has become the bearer of the identified “truth” of the story.

In fact, there’s a general feel of Alan Moore to the proceedings (he did guest write an issue of the comics, but that’s well beyond what the series covers). Early on, Julie has a monologue (because this is the 90s, so of course there are gloomy monologues across rain covered streets) where she, quoting an adage, claims that individuals are responsible for whatever happens to them. “A liberal is a conservative who’s never been mugged.” And from then on the question lurks as to how much the series believes this semi-objectivist viewpoint, and how much Julie is a character being observed.

Because that idea of a monomyth, seeming to focus around Maxx and his early representation of glorious masculine violence, ultimately revolves around Julie. Or is it even a monomyth? Is it only the unconscious of a single person, a small group tied together by a shared chain of traumatic events? Does this Outback-Pangea-Dreamscape represent anything but one person’s struggle with the junk inside their head? The writing keeps shattering and shrinking its parameters, trying to craft an explicitly personal story from thematic elements that other writers might simply assume as universal viewpoints.

It doesn’t entirely escape the problem of centering the universe around its small cast – there’s some weight, given all that happens, that the world will cease to be once Julie turns her gaze away. But the fact that it examines the roots of its own viewpoints deserves applause – even if it sometimes comes at the expense of terrifically 90s moments where the writers pat themselves on the back for pointing out that we’ve become desensitized to violence while insinuating that we really want to see Maxx pop a shark man’s head off (and if I rolled my eyes any harder at the Calvin & Hobbes pastiche, they would roll right out of my head).

The issue of the series’ gender politics becomes a somewhat thornier issue: Julie is labelled as a “sex-positive feminist” and deals with a fair number of male authority figures telling her she won’t be taken seriously for her revealing wardrobe. Which works as a comment on how women are policed by male voices if you’re feeling generous, and a buzzword excuse to look progressive while having the then-only female character showing a lot of skin if you’re a touch more cynical. And as I mentioned, Julie herself toes the line of the “asking for it” excuse in response to victimhood as part of her extreme self-sufficiency mindset, and because she begins as the only woman (thus a representation of not “Julie” but “Women” generally, whether intended or not), it can make the early episodes downright uncomfortable. It’s not a new trick, after all, to put conservative viewpoints in the mouths of a marginalized character in order to make them sound more justifiable (South Park’s been guilty of this before). Certainly its conception of feminism is set quite squarely in the Second Wave (though in the 90s 3rd wave and intersectional feminism were barely a nascent dream), up to and including a Gloria Steinem reference, and there’s never as much of an interest in really digging into these things as showing off that the writers are aware of them.

But then, as with so many things, the writing does its best to begin unpacking its own broad strokes. Most notably, Maxx, the ultra-masculine presence up to this point, is quite pointedly given a speech about how rape isn’t the victim’s fault, but rather something that happens to them (and if that seems like it should be dully obvious, let me point out that this is a 1995 adaptation of a 1993 comic, and that in 1993 marital rape had only just become illegal in all 50 states). The script plays a razor wire game with the concept of rape in general – while the show doesn’t shy away from the term it also uses it equitably with words like “attack” and “assault,” which work as a subtle reminder that rape is purely an act of violence on the level with a mugging. Not something that one “had coming” but merely what one suffers.

Of course, even when treated seriously rape is too often the go-to method of character development for female characters in comic books. And while it wasn’t yet the disturbingly existent cliché in the early 90s that it has unfortunately become, it was certainly on the upswing in tandem with comics’ desperate urge to be Serious and Edgy. In that vein, it can be easy to categorize it as being trotted out again, nothing more than a tired plot device. But there’s room for argument as well that sexual assault is a deeply scarring event that affects its victims in often far-reaching ways, and that those stories deserve to be told if they are done with tact and grace. Which is arguably done here – the rape is mentioned as an impacting event but never shown as a means of shocking or titillating the audience, and the further the plot goes on the more it begins to stress how Maxx can’t solve this problem for Julie, as much as he wants to swoop in and be the hero.

Instead, Maxx becomes a well-meaning soul whose own identity has been sucked into wanting to play a role for someone else, someone who wants anything but to examine their inner life. And when she does, the inciting incident for this event becomes less important than childhood conceptions of loss and lessons taken from adults. And it further distances itself from identifying Julie as the universal female experience by way of Sarah, an angrier, not quite proto-Daria dealing with parental abandonment, body image, mental illness, and a gen-X flavored sense of disillusionment with the world. Because of how the comic was plotted her arc contains the most loose threads, but her eventual begrudging bond with Julie and quest for self-identity still manages to feel fresh in how ugly it allows Sarah’s struggle to get, how unpleasant Sarah herself is allowed to be in comparison to most young women in media, before letting her re-emerge.

It’s not perfect – there’s something discomfiting about the fact that within the scope of the series it’s Mr. Gone, the rapist and murderer, who possesses the narrative position of speaking truths for a large portion of the story; and after those broad strokes early episodes, the writers don’t so much resolve the questions they’ve poked at as they run away hoping we won’t notice the shifting gears – but it’s a surprising little gem in what is now known, not wholly complimentarily, as the Dark Age of comics. It’s the kind of balancing act that could easily (and probably would, honestly) tip into gross, reductive mishandling from any new adaptor looking to capitalize on the stylized, gritty surface elements. But existing as it does, it’s a fascinating time capsule of ideas with a strong personal narrative once it gets going, and completely gorgeous, inventive visuals that are almost worth watching for in themselves.

[eversoslightlybitter]

Me: Neil Gaiman is probably taking a break from tumblr for writing reasons

*finds out months later he's a serial rapist*

Me: Okay, so was anyone gonna tell me or

[is-the-owl-video-cute]

I am not supporting or condoneing Neil Gaiman by saying this, I just think it's a lil bit fucked up to say that him writing an incredibly fucked-up and disgusting fictional short story thirty years ago is as or more severe than him both vocally and financially defending the rapist fascist-apologist leader of a corrupt non-profit.

if i am being at all honest, i think that him defending a sicko should be the main thing that is centre stage. not his entirely messed-up on purpose early peter jackson-esque proto-game of thrones fantasy short story told from the perspective of an evil queen being burnt to death. all of which is fictional.

now, i am not someone who says "fiction doesn't impact reality" because it obviously does. going all the way back to the foundations of hollywood with birth of a nation crafting a new era of racial hatred and the reformation of the kkk, leading to the many deaths of innocent black men. fiction does impact reality. if it didn't, it wouldn't be used for propaganda.

but i do have an issue with the mentallity of "fiction = reality" where many people believe that fictional representations of horrific acts in anyform is the same as committing those horrific acts in real life.

another anon mentioned that disgusting yet fictional content gives rapists and pedophiles ideas. which i don't deny, but so can anything. the bible can give sickos ideas. psa films warning children of predators can give sickos ideas. any news covergae of horrific crimes or deaths or any represenation of any fowl act within fiction, tame or not, can give sickos ideas. a sicko will sicko no matter if they are inspired by something extreme or not.

if a fucked in the head psychopath is watching fictional content that displays horrific acts and plans to repeat them, those horrific acts were most likely normallised to them even before they got their hands on boku no pico or whatever the fuck. that is why most convicted pedophiles have a background of being a victim of pedophiles themselves. that is why most serial killers or psychopathic killers have a history of being a victim to horrific abuse. not to mention how rapist ideology (when girls say no they really mean yes, if he's mean to you it must mean he likes you) is fed to men and boys from birth. these disgusting traits are already normallised in people willing to ennact on them. all it does is give them inspiration for their horrific deads, not inspire the deads all within itself.

to ban and censor media on the basis that it might inspire some vile individual to commit horrific acts is incredibly near-sighted and is based upon nothing but someone's own personal disgust.

when the haye's code was introduced, it didn't stop murder or rapes or drugs or sex or nudity. when the british government banned video nasties, it didn't stop sexual assaults or graphic murders or crime or cannibalism or any of that.

simply banning art that goes against one's personal comforts won't prevent or stop any heinous crime.

i am not shitting on you or anybody else for feeling disgusted by vile content, i am too. i wouldn't expect anybody to watch braindead with me once they find out about the climax of the film. i am just saying, fighting for the censorship of media that fictionally depicts acts of depravity will not stop actual acts of depravity taking place. it is a useless effort that will only divert attention away from actual sickos to some dumbass 14 year old proshipper.

i am more concerned about people actually hurting others than people who think about and write down hurting others with no intention to do so and i don't think they should be seen as equal threats. somebody writing about a ballistic missle hitting an orphanage vs someone in real life using a ballistic missile to hit an orphanage are two different things. now, if the writer's intention was to get someone to go and fire a ballistic missile at an orphanage then there is a solid argument that they are pro-hitting orphanages with ballistic missiles. but if someone writes it without the intention of getting someone to hit an orphanage with a ballistic missile and someone hasn't done that, i think it's weird to say that they are just the same as someone who hits an orphanage with a ballistic missile.

anyways, my brain feels like its glooping out of my ear. i need to sleep. bye.

Dude I legitimately only mentioned the short story at all because he paid to have it redone as a comic in 2019 and wrote it as a love letter to the “comic book legal defense fund” and used profits from it as part of what he bailed the pedophile out with. Legitimately why did you write me an entire essay over this what in the world that post was just listing bad things he has done not saying they carry the same weight drink some water or something jesus.