LogFAQs > #983651095

LightSnake posted...

I'm sorry, but Palmer in the article passed a lover she was tired of to Gaiman. She's basically "Hey, want to come over to our remote house and babysit? My husband has a really bad dark side, but I know you need money, so whatever." Before you even address the level knowledge she might've had about his behavior she was apparently fine with them using vulnerable women as unpaid labor which is bad enough as it is

Her excuse pretty much boils down to, "I knew he had treated so many young woman like that in the past but I told him not to do that to you."

She wasn't unpaid labor either. She was given housing in exchange for her nanny services, which were irregular and, by the description of the article, certainly not full-time employment. As far as nanny's go, this is pretty common fare.

The "Passed a lover" is an entirely different person, and the woman was planning to have sex with Gaiman in email correspondence with Amanda before she went to meet him. That's how shit happens in the fetish community. You can decide if that upsets your personal morals or not but that entire situation was entirely consensual and with explicit understanding from everybody involved.

Yes, she was under the understanding that he only did BDSM stuff with consenting adults prior to this situation. She was never informed prior to Scarlett's policy report in 2023 that he was sexually abusing women in non-consensual circumstances. So when she asked Neil not to have sex with the new nanny it was under the preconceived notion that Gaiman was not a rapist and thus would avoid having sex with Scarlett, or at the very least... Not rape her.

The article is using language about their consensual fetish community to paint a picture of Amanda Palmer being permissive about non-consensual sexual activities. That is not what the actual evidence shows. If the article had a smoking gun showing Amanda say, "Yeah, he has sexually assaulted a bunch of women in the past, it's not just you" the article would have quoted that. Instead it's a bunch of cut context "quotes" that imply some degree of malfeasance from her.