Not a Victim, but Victimized: Coming to Terms with Neil Gaiman

Note: if you want more information before, or after reading this, I think NPR has a great, high level, overview.

I’ve had it with old, white, privileged men. Some of you may have absolutely no idea what I could be talking about at all. To you, I say, I hope you like peeing while standing up. I envy that. The rest of you, even some of you that get to enjoy the standing urination, are probably wondering, why now? We have so many actors, chefs, politicians, directors, producers, executives, and [insert public persona here] that have proven that skepticism of this particular cohort of individuals is just good practice for survival. We may not all be thinking the same names, but we all know who we’re talking about. And, don’t misunderstand me, I have been angry and disappointed with them too. I have felt hurt, shocked, and then, not shocked at all.

But this is different. This time I write about feeling as though my trust was betrayed, as though I have been victimized, but I was not one of his victims. I found him, and his writing, at a very vulnerable time in my life. I was in my 20s and I fell in love with his words. They had a musical quality to them that I found soothing. His imagination took me away to beautiful places when my own life was ugly and scary in ways I didn’t yet understand. His voice, almost singing as he read those magical words, could lull me to sleep when nothing else could. Had I met Neil Gaiman (the last time I will use his name here, from this point forward, he’ll be known as “the Wanker”) at this time in my life, and he had shown an interest in me, I would have been the perfect victim.

For now, I’m hiding his name, but I don’t know if that’s enough.

It’s impossible to ignore how much I identify with the women that spoke for the podcast Master. Their stories and personalities resonated with me, deeply. Bookish. Young. Lonely. Misunderstood. Some whose close friends encouraged the developing relationship. Some with few friends at all. None seemed to have friends with enough experience to recognize the red flags and provide concern, warning, a listening ear, and/or a place of respite. I was these women. In some ways, I still am. 

As I listened to their stories, I was struck by two things in particular, both related to the issues related to consent. Fun, right?

The National Sexual Violence Resource Center defines consent as “freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact as indicated by words or overt actions by a person legally and functionally competent” (with additional notes regarding legal and cultural considerations). With that definition in mind, I revisited the podcast, paying close attention to the specific details told by these women regarding sexual encounters with the Wanker and it was interesting for me to think about. Taken out of context, one could reasonably come to the conclusion (in my opinion at least) that he did, in fact, obtain consent in some of the encounters that he instigated with these women. I base that both on the women's descriptions of the event itself and their own behavior in the moment and supporting documentation in form of recorded phone conversations and text messages with the Wanker the hours and days following these encounters.

And as I write, I feel it’s important to keep in mind that 1) this applies to only some of the encounters. In other cases, the Wanker appears to be clinging to some archaic version of consent where, once given (e.g a sexual relationship has started), it can never be rescinded, either temporarily or permanently. And 2) I have only the perspectives of the women for the descriptions of these events. These women now view these encounters as traumatic, as physical and emotional assaults on their person. They are inherently biased. How could they not be? They are going to find it difficult, if not impossible, to describe the Wanker as anything other than a sexual predator and themselves as victims. And, to be completely clear, I BELIEVE THEM. But, despite that bias, there are many individual moments where it still sounds, to me, like the Wanker could honestly have believed that he had consent.

And yeah, I know how this sounds. I believe these women were assaulted AND I believe that, in some cases (can I beat that dead horse any more), the Wanker truly had no sense at all that these women were being assaulted and being assaulted by him.

We all want issues with stakes as high as these, giving consent to sexual contact, to be black and white. And in the most extreme cases, they are. The problem is, we mostly exist in the murky middle and that’s often where we get in trouble. Black & White: An individual that is significantly impaired by drugs and/or alcohol is not, in that moment, competent to give consent. Gray: Can an individual significantly impaired by drugs and/or alcohol be expected to assess another individual’s impairment? Black and White: An individual has given consent by saying, “it’s okay” when asked if their partner can continue with a sexual act. Gray: That individual’s voice had a slight wobble as a result of fear. Is their partner responsible for detecting a slight wobble in the heat of the moment, maybe while music is playing?

I honestly don’t know the answer to these kinds of questions, but I am a fan of some things that, I think, can help (spoken as a professsional… nothing). First, I like the addition of “enthusiastic” to the definition of consent. Not sure it would have legal standing, but still just useful for everyone to maintain as the definition in their own mind. It’s not just the agreement to have intercourse, it’s the enthusiastic agreement. Plus, isn’t that more attractive anyway?

Second, I like boundaries. I’m not trying to put a damper on anyone’s sex life, tell anyone to stop experimenting, or shame anyone for a one night stand. Understanding your own boundaries, defining them for yourself, and even practicing how you will say no when your boundaries are at risk, can help create a sort of automatic response when other things might have impaired you, even if it’s just the heat of the moment getting in your way. Don’t mistake this as a guarantee that if you get drunk, your brain will automatically respond the way you want it to, but it might help a little in certain situations.

And third. Conversations are so great. This may seem like something reserved for relationships that have lasted longer than a few hours, but it really doesn’t have to. I will only say that talking about what you want to try with each other can actually be really really hot.

Okay, consent in the moment. Check. Now it’s time for the second (for me) notable point regarding consent and the Wanker, and it’s a doozy. Power dynamics and coercive control. And this, THIS, insidious approach of all these wankers is where things get beyond fucked up. This is the thing that makes EVERYTHING I just said about consent completely immaterial to this situation. This is the thing that makes the Wanker a sexual predator. No trial. No question. He just is. Period. And this is the thing that made me feel like one of his victims (though not in the same way and nowhere to the same degree as his actual victims).

The Wanker was a man in his 50s and 60s. He had (and has) substantial financial resources. He was a public figure who had so many people convinced (including me) that he was an ally. He had immense power and influence. He has considerable talent with words, making coercion an easy skill to develop. On the other hand, these were young women in their early twenties and late TEENS. Women that already admired or idolized him. Women lacking in financial means, education, or experience. The Wanker and these women were not on equal ground, they weren’t even close. He flattered them, lied to them, and then he shamed them and coerced them. These women were groomed by the Wanker. He isolated them from others and stepped in as father, teacher, friend, and lover. He supported them financially and became everything to them. And, over time, he obtained “consent” by convincing them there was no other choice left.

When he was done, he left these women with little to no sense of self. Some were unable to clearly articulate what they liked and didn’t like. Some were unable to support themselves without continuing to ask the Wanker for help. And still under his control, he used that to coerce them into silence, using money and legal tactics to threaten them. As they have each found it within themselves to come forward and share their experiences, he has dismissed them. Claiming they were in “consensual relationships”. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present you with a case study in coercive control. This was a black and white situation, this was one of those examples on the extreme edge. There was no consent. There was abuse and there was control, perpetrated by a gross old man on vulnerable women.

And I suppose, to some extent, he’s getting what he deserves. Women are speaking up, finding their voice again. He has paid a little bit of money, and may pay more. Creators, producers, and publishers are running as far from him as possible. But, in all likelihood, he’ll continue to be a man of substantial financial means and, to be perfectly honest, I don’t think he’s done victimizing.

Like an abuser, every time I think I’ve rid myself of him, I find some new evidence of how I let him become such a big part of my life

Where does that leave me? Not really a victim, so obviously probably doing better than most of those incredible women (and others that haven’t yet found their voice). But what do I do with the books on my shelves? How do I think about the characters I still love? How do I make sense of the safety and escape he gave to me? In my mind I will behead him, tie him to a post with his own entrails, and send him to Hel on the River Gjoll. (A fitting punishment for any fan of Norse mythology) But what of his creations? Are they him? Tainted by him? Like an abuse victim, I am left to grapple with the hurt that can only be exacted by a loved one. I am stuck in the murky middle, a world of gray, where I know I will do what I can to avoid any future financial contribution to him, but still wondering where the creator ends and the creation begins.