I have transcribed the second episode of Tortoise's podcast series "Master: the Allegations against Neil Gaiman." This transcript is not certified and should not be relied on for legal or journalistic purposes without confirming with audio. CW for sexual assault. drive.google.com/file/d/1pxWm...
I have listened to and transcribed the first episode of the Tortoise Media podcast series "The Allegations Against Neil Gaiman." This is NOT a certified transcript and should not be relied on for legal or journalistic purposes without confirming with original audio. drive.google.com/file/d/1Ql2b...
This episode goes into further detail about the sexual abuse and assault Scarlett endured at Gaiman's hands, as well as the ways he exploited and manipulated her as she was coming to grips with the severity of what she had endured.
The podcasters describe this as "mild BDSM." I would challenge that interpretation: this bears no relation to any safe, sane, consensual BDSM practices I am aware of, and the conduct described would not fall into the "mild" category for anyone I know.
It also describes how Rachel was induced to sign an NDA, how Neil got her to go on record with his therapist (!!) to say he had not raped her, and touches on the frustrating experience she had going to the New Zealand police.
I have highlighted the places where Scarlett speaks in her own voice, both with the podcasters and in archived recordings, as well as Neil's statements in his own voice from archived recordings. This episode contains the first hint that Neil may indeed have spoken to the podcasters, on page 12.
Thank you for doing this. It must have been very difficult. It's heart-wrenching to read.
This poor girl was repeatedly raped, often violently.
Also: The fourteenth woman who went to Amanda? How many who didn't?!?
thanks for these; have you done the last two yet? People certainly should listen to or read these before taking a stance, I think. A few things are clear: the victim approached these journalists and speaks with them at length. they have a lot of documented correspondence. This isn't hearsay.
I'm working on them as I can. It's pretty intense work, and it has to take a back seat at times to other parts of my life. I hope to have the third one out today.
These details are so damning.
An NDA signed well after any work took place, back dated to the day they met.
The very idea of consent in a BDSM relationship being give after the fact.
Manipulative messages, offers of help, money, access to a therapist, a message from a celebrity..
The descriptions of the acts in question are awful. Again, starting hours after they meet, with a wildly disparate power dynamic, without any discussion of rules or boundaries.
The power dynamics throw this straight up into abuse. There can’t be clearly proven consent if the parties are they n such obviously unequal footing. I’m also wondering about Amanda Palmer here. As Misma asked, how could she put a young woman in that situation knowing what Neil had done
before.
Wife and I were supposed to go see him give a talk at Wolf Trap
Gonna see if I can get the tickets refunded but I doubt ticketmaster will be helpful and we'll have to just eat the cost.
Not a mental health professional nor otherwise involved in medical field ethics... but is there any context where "going on the record" with someone else's therapist could possibly be a thing?
Not only there's nothing "mild" about some of this, it can only happen in two ways: between two consenting people who are aware they're both into some of the more rare and problematic practices or if one of the participants really doesn't know what's happening and the latter case is really not good.
Yeah it’s called edgeplay for a reason… but if the allegations are even remotely accurate (which I suspect they are and this probably is not even the worst he’s done) he’s not an edgeplayer, he’s a fucking predator.
Not only…yes, this, but also the extremeness and intensity of some of the behavior described undermines the supposed consent framing. Even if someone reads the messages totally naively as describing a consensual relationship, it’s not consent _for this_.
If you’re doing stuff that is probably inadvisable for safety reasons in the first place, and the very least needs a really full handling of consent/limits/safety etc., texts of the “I like you a lot” ilk just don’t evidence that anything like the necessary discussion took place.
I knew nothing about this, and thank you for this brief breakdown because after this bit of information I know it's safer for my mental health to stay knowing nothing ✌️
