Neil Gaiman — the best-selling author whose work includes comic book series *The Sandman *and the novels Good Omens and American Gods — has denied sexual assault allegations made against him by two women with whom he had relationships with at the time, Tortoise Media reports.
The allegations were made during Tortoise’s four-part podcast Master: the Allegations Against Neil Gaiman, which was released Wednesday. In it, the women allege “rough and degrading sex” with the author, which the women claim was not always consensual.
One of the women, a 23-year-old named Scarlett, worked as a nanny to his child.
Agreed, but in my experience people in their early twenties can be surprisingly experienced and conscious kinksters, able to voice consent and negotiate intense situations. While people in their fourties can be incredibly insecure, unable to communicate their needs and insecurities, while still wanting to play.
It’s a matter of experience, self-awareness and skills, and those don’t come with age, but with work on yourself and education. We need so much more sex education and communication about these things.
The woman in question doesn’t seem to be an experienced kinkster though, and she should totally be heard in any case. But the age argument distracts from the real issues, I believe.
People in their forties who are also massive global celebrities? I doubt he was especially insecure.
*60s
Oops. You’re right. I read ‘forties’ from the person I was replying to and wires got crossed.
One of the accusations was twenty years ago so 40s applies.
Either way, he was a big celebrity then and he is one now, so I don’t think we can argue that this was some insecurity on his part.
If you truly believe that a celebrity can’t be insecure, you don’t really understand how humans work.
Well, celebrities have more to lose if their sexual partner becomes hostile, so that could be one way celebrities are insecure about sex.
I didn’t mean him in that example, but the bottom of the power dynamic being 40, or 20.
I’ll disagree about age. At 23, the pre-frontal cortex is still developing and won’t be finished until around 25.
It’s responsible for:
There is a distinct imbalance between someone in their 60’s and someone in their early 20’s. I’m not saying it can’t be carefully and respectfully navigated, but it has to be acknowledged and accounted for.
It doesn’t sound like that happened here.
Then we have the power dynamic of a celebrity who is also your employer. Add in a healthy dose of fictive kinship due to the live-in nature of a nanny and you’re in a situation rife with the potential for abuse.
IIRC, that study didn’t conclude it stopped at 25, it expected it to stop at 18, but it kept going, and they ran out of funding at 25. A likely conclusion is that it never really stops, it’s just that what was measured wasn’t really development, but “change”.
Okay, source it if you’ve got it, because the idea that a single study ran out of funding at 25 and that’s where the number comes from is such an odd suggestion, as though no one else has studied the brain’s development and neuroscientists everywhere just shrugged and thought, “if only the funding were there.”
Here’s a well-sourced article that concludes the brain continues to develop well into the mid-20’s.
While the brain will always continue to develop and grow, due to neuroplasticity, the concern is whether or not the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for long-term decision making, is properly developed. This development continues into the mid-20’s and is well-documented.
Here’s a 2022 study where they looked at over 100,000 brain scans from people 110 days old to over 100 years old used to draw and affirm similar conclusions.
While 25 isn’t magic number, as everyone’s brains develop on different timelines, it is a rational and reasonable landmark that can be reliably used for broad discussions.
Here’s more from the National Institute of Mental Health and Penn Medicine.
Looking through it now, I believe the conversation I was in was referencing this: https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2014236 , specifically because it’s not a random group of scans. It’s a rather ambitious study, from 1989, and is, as it was told to me, where the journos got ahold of the “25” number. In fact, the first article you link’s sources seem to all have the 1999 version as their first reference, probably because they’re all pre-2014. No mention of money in the paper, obviously, but it does talk of the study as “ongoing”, and I couldn’t find a newer followup, so, uh, yeah.
As I was digging, though, I ran into this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42540-8 , so the number you go with, if it even makes sense to go with a number, is still a matter of what you want to measure, I’d say.
Not sure how exactly your sources are measuring “development”, but at the age of 41 I know for a fact I still have prefrontal neurogenesis happening. I still have neuroplasticity, etc. My brain’s not going to stop developing until I’m dead.
That’s neuroplasticity, which is true.
Right, so do you know how your sources are differentiating “development” from “neuroplasticity”?
deleted by creator