Neil Gaiman, BDSM, and Dissociation

"Fuck! Is one expected to be a gentleman when one is stiff?"

–Marquis De Sade

*

With the release of the second season of The Sandman on Netflix, I’m reminded of twenty years of rumors and false starts surrounding the film or television adaptation of the beloved comic book franchise.

It also recalls the recent allegations and revelations that have left most fans extremely disappointed in its creator.

The sexual assault accusations against Neil Gaiman give me pause, not just because of the allegations that they were nonconsensual, but also because of the sort of things he’s willing to admit to consenting.

I won’t give a blow by blow here. You can look that up for yourself.

I will say that the original Vulture article, There is No Safe Word, is a much more thorough account than any of the clickbait traps that quote it piecemeal.

Neil is evasive about what exactly occurred, stating that some of the allegations are distortions and that he never abused anyone, though he laments that he may have hurt the feelings of his consensual partners.

In his own defense, he has since released long strings of text messages between himself and an accuser, which does reveal some of Gaiman’s possible reasoning behind believing it was a consensual sexual relationship.

Where there is BDSM, there will always be a blurred line where consent is more difficult to determine, especially long after the fact of any given alleged incident and through the lens of outsiders who weren’t present.

Defenders of the practice swear that the community is buttressed with multiple safeguards against the sort of abuse of which Gaiman is accused but fail to account for the effect of sexual violence on the mind or ask what sort of mind should tend to this kind of violence in the first place.

Is a mind that will consent to such a thing more likely to be dissociative?

Dissociation is no small thing, to be waved away as irrelevant.

Some theories link heavy dissociation as a defense mechanism to ward off traumatic memories, so that it creates a predisposition to reinterpret and reinvent not only the past but even the present.

Which brings us back to the accusations against Gaiman.

If these women did not consent would Gaiman want to admit that to himself now?

Could he have been in a dissociative state even as he was performing these acts, reading as consent what would be plain to an emotionally solvent and well-regulated mind was the opposite?

One interesting note that was brought up in the original Vulture article (which is absent from the many reference articles it spawned) is the fact that Gaiman was raised by Scientologists, and that many of the child-rearing practices which this cult advocated at the time of his upbringing were flagrantly abusive.

This would be the sort of trauma which could create both a habit of dissociation and a penchant for secretive violence in a young man.

On the topic of Scientology, we also can’t help but consider the recent conviction of actor Danny Masterson, who despite having some big Hollywood support and the Church of Scientology on his side, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for the rape of two women.

His upbringing is no excuse for Gaiman’s actions but again begs the question of whether BDSM can ever really be a safe space so long as it attracts those with a sadist streak.

On the other end of the Gaiman case, if the women making these accusations did consent at the time, would they want to believe they did in hindsight?

In more than one case, they say they made it clear to Neil that they were not into BDSM.

What the alleged victims go on to describe in their accounts is a dissociative state, as if they are outside themselves, watching it happen while letting it go on.

Some claim to have said no.

If no was uttered at any time, then the encounter is, by definition, nonconsensual, right?

Except that in the BDSM community, some encounters are arranged where rape is simulated, up to and including declarations of no, with an alternate “safe word” being arranged beforehand.

I want to venture an amendment to this practice.

Perhaps NO should always mean NO.

For if someone with a clever, complex, dissociative mind and a sadist streak has consistently trained themselves to ignore this plea, even as part of an agreed-upon fantasy, and they’ve consistently seen others with a masochistic streak utter NO only to bounce back and continue a friendly relation in the aftermath, should it be any surprise that such a mind would be conditioned to continue in this vein indefinitely?

We are creatures of habit, and our habits will tend to define our creations.

It also seems that Amanda Palmer, Gaiman’s wife at the time, was well aware of his proclivities, and yet still didn’t think much one way or another about leaving these women in his presence.

She has even been insinuated as a “human trafficker” who was supplying Gaiman with victims.

Both Palmer and Gaiman engaged in an open relationship, a lifestyle they advocated as feminists.

Should this be considered as a further encouragement to a dissociative mind to take liberties that people who don’t treat sex so casually might avoid?

Both sex and love are powerful natural drugs which can cloud our judgment as surely as any inanimate substance we imbibe. They stimulate many of the same chemicals internally.

What we have in all these cases are different people’s accounts of what happened, but corroborating eyewitness testimony from third parties or external media like cameras or voice recordings, which could better determine whether the incidents were consensual, has yet to surface.

This unfortunate fact is awful for both victims of sexual assault and victims of false allegations.

In cases like Gaiman’s, having more than one accuser does count for something, but so long as there are financial incentives and lifestyle choices outside the norm, doubt can always be cast, both in a court of law and in the court of public opinion.

Even if the acts were consensual, as Gaiman protests, his decision to engage in sexual relationships with his nanny and gardener and other women in a vulnerable position understandably come across as inappropriate if not outright revolting to many.

The existence of non-disclosure agreements also casts suspicion on him. If sex was consensual, and he’s not ashamed of his lifestyle, what is he asking these women not to disclose?

I’m not here to shame people for their kinks. Consent is consent.

The problem seems to be abuse of power.

Since BDSM relationships are largely about power dynamics, I am rather asking whether there is something implicit in the practice that invites abuse and encourages the mind of those who engage to reframe it as love, or even just fun.

From all the accounts of Gaiman’s antics, especially his own, this might be a conclusion fairly drawn.

This is another one of those instances where we find ourselves asking if we can or should throw the baby out with the bathwater, as the old saying goes.

Though his reputation may be destroyed beyond repair, we can’t pretend the last 40 years of exceptional literary creativity never happened. The influence is just too great, too pervasive.

Especially in the realms of comics, film, and TV, there were so many others who worked to bring his visions to life, and whose creativity is noteworthy in its own right, that it would be a shame to condemn them all on account of Neil’s poor decisions.

The argument cannot be made that real life horrors must necessarily lurk behind fictional horror like that which ran through much of Gaiman’s work.

We have the examples of Bill Cosby and Micheal Jackson, as well as countless rapist priests and child molesting evangelists, to demonstrate that even where the message and moral is supposedly wholesome, the messenger may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

But maybe that’s where the key to unlocking this mystery resides: in not confusing the message with the messenger.

There’s a lot to be found in the works of major religions, wholesome TV dads, pop stars, and fantasy authors alike which might be culled for the improvement of an individual’s moral character.

Perhaps in their best moments, our fallen icons were reaching beyond themselves, and though they should by no means get away with their crimes, we should perhaps linger on what can and should be salvaged from the wreckage of their lives and our love of their work.

More importantly, it indicates that rather than seeking to hero-worship the messenger, we should be looking to the message with a critical eye and an open heart, and asking ourselves: what resonates and why?

The message will outlive both the good and evil deeds of the messenger. It will be changed by those who take it to heart.

We must hope, and make our most earnest effort, to reflect through such a heart a change which encourages further good deeds while banishing those evil and predatory instincts which lead us astray.

=====

Shel Rogers is retired, a fan of classic horror and science fiction, and enjoys their privacy. They're also a Mycological Enthusiast and amateur ham radio operator.