Crime Neil Gaiman Accused of Sexual Assault, Author Denies Allegations

Acclaimed author Neil Gaiman is facing multiple allegations of sexual assault, making him the subject of a police complaint in New Zealand. Gaiman has offered a response as well, refuting the accusations.

Per Tortoise Media, two women have accused Gaiman of sexual assault while in consensual relationships with the author. The allegations go back two decades, but they were first reported on in Tortoise's podcast Master: the allegations against Neil Gaiman, which was released on Wednesday. The women describe allegations of "rough and degrading sex," alleging that these instances were not always consensual.

One of the two accusers, a 23-year-old woman named Scarlett, claims she was sexually assaulted in February 2022 just hours after first meeting Gaiman. According to Scarlett, the assault happened in a bath at Gaiman's New Zealand home where she was hired to work as a nanny for his child. Gaiman says that the two merely "cuddled" and "made out" that day, adding that a three-week sexual relationship ensued, but was entirely consensual. Scarlett insists that Gaiman was "rough and degrading," and reportedly, messages, notes, and accounts from friends support her allegations.

Another accuser, identifying herself as K, says she was an 18-year-old fan when she first met Gaiman at a book signing in Sarasota, Florida, in 2003. K claims that she began a romantic relationship with Gaiman after she turned 20, resulting in engaging in rough sex that she "neither wanted nor enjoyed." It's alleged that one particular incident saw Gaimain forcefully penetrating K despite her objections.

Gaiman has denied this claim as well. The Sandman author maintains that his relationship with K was never unlawful and that he's "disturbed" to be accused of such behavior. According to Gaiman, K's allegations stem from "regret" over the relationship she had when it was over. He also attributed Scarlett's allegations to a condition she has that's associated with false memories, but the Tortoise report noted that this isn't supported by the accuser's medical records.

Additionally, Gaiman has strongly denied all allegations of non-consensual sex at any time with the women accusing him of sexual assault. He also claimed that New Zealand police ignored his offer for assistance with one woman's complaint in 2022, suggesting that shows a lack of substance in the investigation. New Zealand officers have responded by saying they made a "number of attempts to speak to key people as part of this investigation and those efforts remain ongoing." It was added that there are "a number of factors to take into consideration with this case, including location of all parties.”

Gaiman has long been one of pop culture's most revered authors, bringing to life acclaimed stories like The Sandman, Good Omens, and American Gods. Just recently, Netflix has been promoting the upcoming second season of The Sandman, which is based on Gaiman's source material; he also executive produces the series.

Source/Archive

________________________________________________________________________

Honestly while Gaiman was not on the top of my "insufferable and terminally overhyped geek culture retards I cant wait to get outed as sex predators for my own amusement" list (currently being topped by Wil Wheaton followed by Alan Moore) I cannot deny feeling that little bit jollier with the thought I may never have to hear him mentioned again

 

[Manat]

Plamer bringing back the real feminist experience by de Beauvoiring young girls to her Master is certainly something.

This is the original podcast with Scarlett telling the story herself. It's 6 eps long and I'm yet to hear more than one, but it provides more context and details.

A quote from the transcript

makes her call him master in that text to her friend msma Scarlet describes the sex as rough so I asked her if she had any photos of any injuries she sent one back a selfie of herself lying in the outside bath at Neil gaiman's house it's not taken on that first night but on a different occasion she has a purple bruise on her right breast there were times where particularly one time U it was so painful and so violent that I fainted I passed out lost Consciousness ringing in the ears black Vision was the pain was like Celestial you know which is a strange word to use but I couldn't even describe it in language and when I regained Consciousness and I was on the ground I looked up and he was watching the rehearsals from Scotland of whatever they were filming I don't [ __ ] know and didn't even notice that I was passed out and you know that there was blood it was so so so traumatic and I asked him to stop I said it was too much and he and he laughed at me um said I need to be punished

The guy is fucked. This girl kept EVERYTHING, messages, photos, audio recordings etc.



"I'm your master, call me master and I will cum"

 

[Get the rope Macaulay!]

not going to say i'm a fan but i have heard of Neil and the most shocking thing is how heavily tied into scientology his family is and thats not brought up ever. how the fuck was Neil basically the biggest author on the internet in the 2000s and especially on tumblr and no one talked about his family basically being the head of scientology in the UK.

The fact that wasn't shouted from the rooftops during the Atheism era of the internet is the most shocking thing to me. the fact he managed to avoid getting that label slapped on him despite still being extremely involved in scientology is crazy to me.

How much of a psy-op was that entire era online if the internet couldn't even turn Neil Gaiman into Mr.Scientology? him and his family technically rank above Tom Cruise and John Travolta. Which brings me to the other point, how the fuck did Neil never use that to his advantage?

This is not a nanny. This is obviously an underaged prostitute.

her entire story hinges on none of this being consent, and just from the whitewashed article its obvious Amanda got these girls and sent them to Neil as a form of kinky roleplay/sexual pawns, beyond that Neil said all of this was consensual so this could be an obvious case of entrapment by his wife who he was already divorcing.

This wouldn't even be far fetched, i swear i've seen this exact plot in a dozen movies: The spurned woman tricks a man into sexually humiliating things that destroy his life.

I want to know why Tilda Swinton is giving out scholarships to random drifting teenagers.

so they can fuck her friends?

Early Life Check

i find it extremely interesting how Neil, despite his parents being the top scientologists since before he was born, still found time to give him a Bar Mitzvah, a ceremony that you only get after reading from the torah, a religious book in an entirely different language. really makes you think

 

[sheepworldvizor]

Early Life Check https://archive.ph/DRHgD
View attachment 6854720

Yeah ppl focus on the scientology shit and I’m like…no, look deeper.

 

[CowPox]

Has Neil been silent since last summer?

 

[Judge Holden]

I want to know why Tilda Swinton is giving out scholarships to random drifting teenagers. I hate celebrities.

Didn't catch that and that is hella fucking suspect now that you mention it. Tilda Swinton has always seemed off to me, even by the standards of the intentionally offputting and cringe-ass "artiste" schtick she has been latched on to since the 80s. Frankly she gave me a troon vibe before I even knew what a troon was and even though she aint technically a troon herself. Its the sheer performativity of her bullshit that makes me suspect there is unpleasant shit below the surface she is trying to keep hidden.

Also a quick wiki search produced this so uh....yeah.

 

[The Skeksis Emperor]

Didn't catch that and that is hella fucking suspect now that you mention it.

I mean it could be just unclear reporting, and that in reality all was above board. Nothing wrong with giving a scholarship to a talented youngster when parents or guardians are involved. But if the reporting is true and this teenage girl was just drifting through Europe by herself, how did she end up meeting a pretty famous actress, and on what basis does that earn her a scholarship? Sounds like bad news.

 

[God of Nothing]

this seems like a trashfire in every aspect
i believe everyone in this story as it grows should die

 

[Endangered Species List]

 

[Get the rope Macaulay!]

Honestly how much of this is just Palmer, angry at the divorce, convincing women to sell Neil down the river? he married crazy but didn't realize she could destroy his life

and was mega molested as a kid

i know thats the obvious take but i don't believe it, unless every jewish person ever has been diddled i think its just what he's into. plus apparently his parents were at the top of the religion, what sort of psychotic would rape the leader of their religion?

I could see John Green catching some kind of shit.

John Green might as well be named Mr.Rape, he's been investigated by tumblr and at least one image board and i think even here and always comes out clean, he just looks like such a rapist everyone assumed he was. he was basically forced to stop interacting with his own fanbase as much because even they were calling him out on how weird it was.

I bet he fucking chortled to himself over that. I bet he thought that was really clever. You fucking cunt, Neil. You fucking cunt hack.

the fact that his kid even knows the pet name his father gave someone during sex is a massive red flag, by all accounts he clearly wouldn't have given a fuck if his own kid joined in.

 

[ExplodedWhale]

Oh, the other thing in the article that sets me off is repeating the myth about "real BDSM is consensual". No. BDSM may or may not be consensual but the No True Scotsman notion that if it's not consensual you're not part of the BDSM community and some sort of aberration is bullshit. Same sort of deal when a trans-identifying man raped a woman and the trans lobby were all "he was just pretending to be trans".

BDSM practice is filled with abusers. Like flies to honey.

Okay, hear me out.

I saw a post on Tumblr making this point and I fully agree.

But someone offered a different point on why it was brought up so heavily in this article:

Neil Gaiman and his people are going to argue that the incidents were "consensual BDSM taken out of context and therefore, the assaults completely didn't happen. she's a jilted lover."

The writer could be basically adding some context on why this instance wasn't "true" BDSM and why we should consider what reportedly happened abuse and not consensual.

Even though like you said, "true" BDSM is still horribly violent. BDSM is just justification for abusers to abuse and I'm tired of seeing it (and other violent sexual acts) be normalized.

To be fair the BPD accuser in the article claimed she was gay after being abused at 15, but after letting Gaiman cornhole her a few times she was straight again

Tbh I read it as she told him that as an excuse on why she didn't want a sexual relationship with him since her saying no was (allegedly) ignored, but I could have misread.

the most shocking thing is how heavily tied into scientology his family is and thats not brought up ever. how the fuck was Neil basically the biggest author on the internet in the 2000s and especially on tumblr and no one talked about his family basically being the head of scientology in the UK.

I mean his father ended up pretty disgraced in Scientology, enough to be basically unpersoned and sent to the Hole, right?

From what I understand, your status is basically stripped from you when that happens.

The clout, all the money, all the time, everything doesn't matter when you're deemed a Suppressive Person. (Apparently this even happened to Mike Rinder, who was one of Miscavige's close players.)


David Miscavige has been head of the whole thing for about 30? 40? years by now and he's known to scrub things. He's dirty when he's got an axe to grind.


Plus, there's been at least two generations born since that happened to the family.

I'm sure Scientology Old Heads know about the connection nowadays, and even then, they're not allowed to acknowledge Suppressive People.

 

[Get the rope Macaulay!]

I'm sure Scientology Old Heads

oh you don't know? Neil's sister is back on top in the UK apparently. plus Neil's first wife was a scientologist and he raised his previous kids in the religion too and was last seen at functions as recently as like 2010. like i guess the family kept in the religion because they all seem very high up in the org.

 

[Overly Serious]

The important thing about Neil Gaiman and that organization is that his father was both one of the top people in it in the 1970s and one of the absolute worst people in it. He was in the organization's internal version of the CIA. Neil was royalty among them until his father fell from power as part of a purge in the early 1980s. Not coincidentally, Neil's writing career starts just about the same time. He needed a job.

Being raised by such people might explain why I have such a strong aversion to his work. How to explain this...? Deconstruction is where someone vivisects a trope/myth/genre/whatever to examine the parts. If you subject a child to this, they learn (or think they learn) how something works without ever appreciating the thing itself. Children need to first enjoy fantasy, people need to enjoy legends and feel elevated by our myths. If you start at an early age deconstructing you kill the belief in the thing itself.

And that's how Gaiman's work feels to me - it's nothing but moving the parts around and thinking it's profound. Compare with Tolkien or C.S.Lewis who valued the mythic themes of the end product of their work for their own sake. They both understood the structure of myth and legend as well as Gaiman (much better, frankly) but they used that deeper insight to better create mythic tales. Gaiman doesn't understand the value in what he's creating. He's someone who can only see the trees and not the forest.

The abuser is fundamentally responsible, always

Nobody is culpable for getting raped. You just admitted he is a rapist so that matter is settled. The only one responsible is the rapist. I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but it is a undeniable fact.

The problem with the 'taking responsibility' argument is it itself is an abuse tactic, usually used against women who are more vulnerable to emotional manipulation

But that argument has no boundary. What's your definition of 'dressed like a prostitute'?" What if you struggle to hold your drink and don't know your limits, which men do all the time?

I could PL and add some weight to what I'm about to say but it'll have to just stand on its own, which is fine. I don't think anywhere @Shiverpeaks tried to downplay the moral failings or fault of the abuser. Those who see blame as a zero-sum game where any suggestion of poor judgement on the victim's part subtracts from the blame on the abuser's part will read it as such, but I don't think that's a good model for how to think of cause and effect. Which is where I think @Shiverpeaks is coming from - not putting a moral blame on the victim but simply saying they should have better judgement. A practical matter. Note he/she didn't blame first time victims either. I imagine like me they feel that girls like that have been failed by society or their family. (And in Scarlett's case, she clearly had been failed by her family who were abusive as well). All @Shiverpeaks seemed to be saying to me was that you can't learn from mistakes unless you acknowledge them. And next day texting the guy who raped you something like "I'm excited for the possibilities ahead" and "I can't stop thinking about you" is not good judgement. It's not a moral question and I have little time for "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts". I can say personally that there's truth to what he was saying: you need to say to yourself "I let that happen to me" or it will keep happening. I'm not talking about moral rights or wrongs, but cause and effect and learning to protect yourself. And learning to protect yourself is not enabling of turning a blind eye to abusers. In fact, it helps bring them down and teach others how to bring them down as well.

@Vect Yes, the argument has no boundary and never will because what signals mean will always be a consensus driven thing. By definition. And different people will always have different takes on it. But that's an abstract argument that isn't needed because surely we all agree that wherever the line actually is, someone going back to their rapist, messaging him to call him master and telling him how excited he makes you, is not near that line. It's not ambiguous. That is self-destructive behaviour and if someone denies that it is self-destructive behaviour they will continue to engage in it.

TL;DR: There's an argument here between a pragmatist saying "take practical steps and change your behaviour" and moralists saying: "don't blame victims ever". It's an argument that cannot be resolved because they don't connect. The pragmatist isn't arguing about how things should be or morality. And the moralist isn't arguing about effectiveness but about right and wrong. It's taking place because in the centre of both is the concept of Responsibility and that has two different ways of interpreting it: cause and effect and moral burden. The two sides will continue to fail to convince the other because they can't.

 

[FedPostalService]

The Gaiman stuff has been known for years. His wife was in on it. His friends knew and laughed about it. The real story is who has he pissed off to have it blow up like this?

Oh, the other thing in the article that sets me off is repeating the myth about "real BDSM is consensual". No. BDSM may or may not be consensual but the No True Scotsman notion that if it's not consensual you're not part of the BDSM community and some sort of aberration is bullshit. Same sort of deal when a trans-identifying man raped a woman and the trans lobby were all "he was just pretending to be trans".

BDSM practice is filled with abusers. Like flies to honey.

BDSM and Kink community types are the biggest bores on the planet. The make Marquis de Sade level degeneracy sound like doing admin.

Oh yeah, the kid is going to be fucked in the head, weather he was diddled or not. Worst case he ends up like his dad. That is nightmare fuel.

Fucking in front of a kid is an actual criminal offence in Bongland. Is having sex in front of children one of those weird freedoms that makes Burgers falsely believe they’re better than the British?

 

[Chapalapachapa]

Moore's wife and her girlfriend took all the money they made from Mad Love when they both dumped him

That edgy tryhard sped got lesbiana cucked? Lmao

 

[Kulee Baba]

The fact that wasn't shouted from the rooftops during the Atheism era of the internet is the most shocking thing to me. the fact he managed to avoid getting that label slapped on him despite still being extremely involved in scientology is crazy to me.

The vibe I got was that people were aware of his family's history with Scientology but they assumed the best and thought that he politely fucked off from it. Knowledge of Anti-Scientology was that it was a money fleecing cult, not much focus was made into how Scientology's hardcore practices would really fuck with the heads of children what with the Seaorg and all that.

Gaiman is kinda Cosby-esque, he caried a really positive reputation no one really hated his work you either loved his stuff or you didn't care for it.

 

[Maldavius Figtree]

Millennial journalists are fucking trash. They all think of themselves as these great storytellers. It's also an amazing way to turn a he-said-she-said situation into an absolute control of the narrative. Notice how the article describes the POV accusations of some mentally deranged whores years later as if every minute encounter were proven and verifiable facts?
Why is it so fucking hard to just lay out the accusations, and lay out the hard proof like recordings or whatever, instead of spinning everything into a "story". Also notice they only do this when they want to, they are fully able to use distanced reported speech when they want to ("She claimed he had first touched her...").

Anyways, obviously the dude is a rapist. If I had to pick out one contemporary writer most likely to be an abusive rapist, it would've been him. Even if he wasn't known for being a slimy "male feminist", you just fucking know.

It will never fail to amaze me how blind normies are to spotting obvious predators. They're surprised the Marilyn Manson and Rammstein dudes abused groupies, they're surprised PirateSoftware is a selfish grifter, they're surprised MrBeast is a sex pest defender, they're surprised Meeks doesn't make a good boyfriend and Diddy was a pimp........ normies truly are bleeding fish in a shark tank.

 

[Cantercoin]

I bet Todd's feeling real vindicated right about now

 

[Chapalapachapa]

Neil Gaiman more like Jew Rapeman

 

[CowPox]

I bet Todd's feeling real vindicated right about now View attachment 6856636

Isn't Todd just as litigious as Neil?

 

[Kulee Baba]

Neil Gaiman - Not a Gayman but a heterosexual rapist
Alan Moore - Most likely a nonce - see Lost Girls ACTUALLY DON'T SEE LOST GIRLS THAT SHIT IS BASICALLY LEGAL LOLISMUT
Warren Ellis - Accused Sexpest

All the British Comic Book invasion has left is Grant Morrison who officially uses They/Them Pronouns and edgelord Mark Millar who you'd think would be the most fucked up of them all but no cancellation yet. What a mistake it was for American media to ever trust the Bongs.