Kulturkampf

[DavidCroquet]

I’m normally all in on this whole line of argument, but it sort of elides that this girl was 19 year old homeless goofball dumdum, and not like…a sane adult with a normal job. Plus the other story of detail is him humping on his indentured servant lol.

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

also die gaiman die!

I'd absolutely say that he took advantage of her, but there is something weird about "when I gave consent I didn't actually give consent" that feels like a bad road to go down. Like can't quite put my finger on it because I do think she was a victim here.

The new minefield is revoking consent days, weeks or months after giving consent.

At the time I gave consent but now I don't anymore so you are retroactively at fault.

To carepost: I read the article less as Scarletttt “revoking” consent, and more like she granted it post-facto.

The quote about consensual and wonderful that’s being hammered on isn’t contemporaneous, so IMO it kinda means nothing either way. Like, imagine a non-sexual context: a goon is gonna sell out the godfather cuz he just wants to live a straight life with his old lady. Then the don calls em up and says “vinny, a little birdie tells me you are gonna inform on me.” “nah boss, yous heard wrong. All these crimes was consensual (and wonderful!)”

Obviously Gaiman wasn’t gonna make cement slippers for this girl, but he is still a rich AF and very weird guy who surprised her with knowledge of conversations she was having that didn’t involve him. I just think it’s as likely as anything that a refugee from Tilda Swinton’s Academie du Pixie Manique would respond the way she did in this scenario.