[untitled]
4 comments
To determine the truth, someone trustworthy needs to evaluate the evidence. Like this author already did, but the trouble is, they're a stranger. We don't know whether to believe them.
So the question is who else is going to do it, and why should we believe them either? That's where journalists working for a reputable newspaper have an advantage. It's why we still need them.
It's clearly beyond what anyone of us are going to do casually after reading a post on social media.
So the question is who else is going to do it, and why should we believe them either? That's where journalists working for a reputable newspaper have an advantage. It's why we still need them.
It's clearly beyond what anyone of us are going to do casually after reading a post on social media.
We need to get past the point of binary perspective. The question isn't whether any one of us is innocent or guilty. The question is of what.
The word "rape" makes people visualize the most extreme scenarios of strangers in the night attacking those weaker than them, and assaulting them with violence.
But there are still significant parts of the world, even the western world, where "marital rape" is considered an oxymoron.
So people tried to come up with a generic neutral term like "sexual assault" which could mean everything from someone's worst rape nightmare, to unwanted touching in a sexualized manner in a crowd.Because that's the reality - physical contact requires consent. And consent is........complicated.
If I say "Do you consent to sex with me?" and you say "yes", did you consent? Yes.
If I say "Do you consent to sex with me, so I don't murder you", and you say "yes", did you consent? No.
Everyone can plainly understand the above. But finding the line for consent shifts can be surprisingly difficult.
* "Do you consent to sex with me, so I can give you the antidote to the poison you accidentally ingested"
* "Do you consent ..., so I can pay for life-saving cancer treatments that you need so that you otherwise can't afford?"
* "Do you consent ..., so I can pay for your rent, and otherwise you will be evicted?"
* "Do you consent ..., so that I don't fire you from the job you have?"
* "Do you consent ..., so that I no longer support you financially in a way that is currently entirely based on good will, and you've come to depend on it, and are scared of losing, because you've moved across the planet to be in my orbit, and now it looks like if you disappoint me, I'll turn on you"
Gaiman's accusations are at the end of this spectrum. Should he be in jail? I don't think so. Should he lose his livelihood? That's entirely up to his fans. Is he "innocent"? Well, if the facts aren't in dispute, I don't think so.
Which is why it' so frustrating and unhelpful to see writers and newspapers like https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y07w7nyxzo dwell on details like:
> Gaiman's legal papers also included WhatsApp messages which he says back up his case, in which Ms Pavlovich thanked him for a "lovely lovely night" and told him their relationship was "consensual".
PLENTY of sexual assault victims "thank" their assaulter, and assure them things were consensual even when they're not. Because they still feel at risk. Or because *THEY DON'T WANT TO ADMIT TO THEMSELVES THAT THEY'RE A VICTIM*.
Nobody wants to feel like they were violated. Nobody wants to admit that they didn't consent. Nobody wants to have the burden of now being the one to decide what to do about this - on a social level, on a criminal level, etc.
Admitting you were assaulted is saying "OK, so do i want this to be something I have to admit about myself for the rest of my life? To waste countless time and money and stress and anxiety to pursue justice that probably won't happen? To risk my own safety and sanity?" No wonder so many people don't.
None of this may change anything that's in this Project. But the whole framing of it pisses me off. It leaves no room for nuance. This man is probably not a monster. That doesn't mean he's not an abuser.
The word "rape" makes people visualize the most extreme scenarios of strangers in the night attacking those weaker than them, and assaulting them with violence.
But there are still significant parts of the world, even the western world, where "marital rape" is considered an oxymoron.
So people tried to come up with a generic neutral term like "sexual assault" which could mean everything from someone's worst rape nightmare, to unwanted touching in a sexualized manner in a crowd.Because that's the reality - physical contact requires consent. And consent is........complicated.
If I say "Do you consent to sex with me?" and you say "yes", did you consent? Yes.
If I say "Do you consent to sex with me, so I don't murder you", and you say "yes", did you consent? No.
Everyone can plainly understand the above. But finding the line for consent shifts can be surprisingly difficult.
* "Do you consent to sex with me, so I can give you the antidote to the poison you accidentally ingested"
* "Do you consent ..., so I can pay for life-saving cancer treatments that you need so that you otherwise can't afford?"
* "Do you consent ..., so I can pay for your rent, and otherwise you will be evicted?"
* "Do you consent ..., so that I don't fire you from the job you have?"
* "Do you consent ..., so that I no longer support you financially in a way that is currently entirely based on good will, and you've come to depend on it, and are scared of losing, because you've moved across the planet to be in my orbit, and now it looks like if you disappoint me, I'll turn on you"
Gaiman's accusations are at the end of this spectrum. Should he be in jail? I don't think so. Should he lose his livelihood? That's entirely up to his fans. Is he "innocent"? Well, if the facts aren't in dispute, I don't think so.
Which is why it' so frustrating and unhelpful to see writers and newspapers like https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y07w7nyxzo dwell on details like:
> Gaiman's legal papers also included WhatsApp messages which he says back up his case, in which Ms Pavlovich thanked him for a "lovely lovely night" and told him their relationship was "consensual".
PLENTY of sexual assault victims "thank" their assaulter, and assure them things were consensual even when they're not. Because they still feel at risk. Or because *THEY DON'T WANT TO ADMIT TO THEMSELVES THAT THEY'RE A VICTIM*.
Nobody wants to feel like they were violated. Nobody wants to admit that they didn't consent. Nobody wants to have the burden of now being the one to decide what to do about this - on a social level, on a criminal level, etc.
Admitting you were assaulted is saying "OK, so do i want this to be something I have to admit about myself for the rest of my life? To waste countless time and money and stress and anxiety to pursue justice that probably won't happen? To risk my own safety and sanity?" No wonder so many people don't.
None of this may change anything that's in this Project. But the whole framing of it pisses me off. It leaves no room for nuance. This man is probably not a monster. That doesn't mean he's not an abuser.
I remember reading the original accusations and the presented fact that the victim was a penniless defenceless girl totally made me believe that indeed something bad had happened.
Seeing the pictures and videos presented on TFA demonstrates I think that about a year back, I was skillfully lied to in print, and fell for it, it's kind of a watershed.
Seeing the pictures and videos presented on TFA demonstrates I think that about a year back, I was skillfully lied to in print, and fell for it, it's kind of a watershed.
But the way in which social media can be used for baseless character assassination (and perhaps a discussion of what could be done to change that) absolutely IS an appropriate topic.