Another round of #MeTootery was unleashed on the unsuspecting public regarding a writer called Neil Gaiman.
The writer who is being #MeTooted sounds like a right bastard. The women accusing him go straight from “It was consensual (and wonderful)!” (a direct quote) to “It was rape!” All of the ingredients of the story are as they always are. A sleazy rich and famous man, overheated groupies eager to pleasure him in most disgusting ways, the accuser who pursues the male star aggressively for years but then is “pressured — from very diverse, mostly older women in her community — to take action that she wasn’t sure she felt comfortable taking.”
These are all icky people, and the story published about the in New York Magazine is badly written, rambling, and filled with very disgusting details of the affairs between Gaiman and the groupies. The reason why I’m even mentioning this is as follows. Gaiman is into BDSM. Liberals have spent years trying to convince us that it’s not a paraphilia but a variation on the norm. And it’s not. BDSM entails getting off on the pain and humiliation of others. The idea that this process has some sort of ironclad rules established by an utterly imaginary entity called “the BDSM community” is ridiculous. Here’s the author of the article, continuing in this vein to make BDSM sound tame and unobjectionable:
BDSM is a culture with a set of long-standing norms, the most important of which is that all parties must eagerly and clearly consent to the overall dynamic as well as to each act before they engage in it. This, as many practitioners, including sex educators like Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy who wrote some of the defining texts of the subculture, have stressed over decades, is the defining line that separates BDSM from abuse.
Yes, the defining texts, totally. Sexual sadists are totally abiding by the “texts” written by sex educators. Marquis de Sade himself never veered from the rules set down by “practitioner Dossie.” It’s a mystery why the practice is even called after him instead of being named Dossieism.
“Consent” can’t guide our entire idea of sexual morality. And of you don’t like the word “morality”, take your objections to the New York Magazine, which is arguing sophomorically that there is good and bad BDSM, with the “good” variety being very arbitrarily defined by the article’s author.
What Gaiman did to the eager young groupie is disgusting and dehumanizing in spite of the fact that she enthusiastically consented, including in writing, many times. That she participated is also disgusting (read the article before you argue with my use of the word ‘disgusting.’ Or don’t because it really is.) She knew it and it weighed heavily with her because this pervy behavior wasn’t natural to her. She only engaged in it because she wanted a rich boyfriend.
First, liberals turned “consent” into a sacred cow, as if people didn’t consent all the time to things that are horrible for them. Now we have to witness their agonies of trying to untangle how this worship of consent leaves many people feeling abused, degraded, and broken.
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment