The Four Color Media Monitor

Here's a writer for the Mexican newspaper Milenio providing her viewpoint on the Neil Gaiman sexual abuse scandal, for anybody interested in what foreign-language op-ed writers have to say about these serious issues, along with Gaiman himself. I've translated it as best as possible from the original Spanish. The headline reads as "Neil Gaiman: Sexual assault is not another fantasy":

Neither the lion is as it is painted nor the creators as we imagine them. This seems to be the case with the writer Neil Gaiman, who has been accused of sexual abuse by two women and is the subject of a police complaint in New Zealand.

The 63-year-old British writer is accused of inappropriate sexual conduct by two women with whom he was romantically linked.

The creator of popular works among which the book Coraline stands out (whose 2009 film adaptation will be re-released next August) and the graphic novel The Sandman, was accused of performing “disgusting” intimate acts. The accusations originally appeared on the Tortoise research portal on July 3.

According to the allegations taken up by various media, the alleged victims indicated that the relations they had with Gaiman were consensual. That is, they agreed to have a sexual encounter with the writer. However, they emphasize that some of these encounters were “aggressive or degrading,” situations that they would not have consented to.

In the case of the accusations, one of them is supported by text messages. However, the author has undertaken his defense with the classic “I am not guilty.” To do so, he alleges that the sexual relations were consensual (something that the victims have never denied, since what they claim is violence in sexual activity, which is not consensual) but that one of them “is motivated by regret for her relationship and the other was suffering from a medical problem associated with false memories, but nothing about it appears in her medical history.

Obviously, there is never a lack of defense for the aggressors and questions for the victims. Because in a society where sexual violence is internalized and even in situations where the lack of consensus is obvious, mitigating factors are sought against what would be an obvious violation. In cases like Gaiman's, his defenders raise their voices "because of how unfair it is to be an aggressor and to be singled out." Because they do not conceive that, beyond the consensus to maintain sexual contact, the type of practices or what happens during the encounter must also be in consensus, because people are not disposable objects of consumption.

And this is how debates about what is or is not sexual violence go on forever. And we have from stealthing -literally 'in secret' or 'secretly' in English-, when a man takes off the condom during sexual intercourse without consent, which is still not recognized as such in most countries, or even those who consider that what happens in a couple, as Gaiman claims, "is remorse."

The writer and his defenders are wrong. Today, more and more of us refuse to have buttons on our eyes like the characters in Coraline so as not to see sexual violence as something everyday and feel bad for reporting it. Neil Gaiman and all the aggressors will have to understand that there are no escape doors to worlds of impunity.

In Mexico, as some may know, the issue of physical/sexual violence is very serious, and rivals what's seen in the Islamic world. So, the writer here certainly has to know what she's talking about, considering how in Mexico, many have fallen victim to terrible experiences like these, with the worst part being when the victim is on the receiving end for defending herself. What Gaiman and his apologists are doing is utterly inconsiderate of what even women in foreign countries who fall victim to terrible experiences go through.

As this article makes clear, there are people in non-English-speaking countries who're catching onto the news of Gaiman's scandal. I have no idea how widely known or read Gaiman's comics and books are in Latin America, but I'm sure there's people with common sense there who, if they know about the discoveries, want nothing to do with Gaiman now. If the animated film adaptation of Coraline is being re-released for screenings, it'd be best to stay home and not pay for tickets, if it's being screened again in theaters, because, if residuals could go to Gaiman, it'd be better not to fill his pockets with dough he doesn't deserve. Besides, isn't Coraline a "dark fantasy"? Considering the grave real life issues in discussion now, darkness is the last thing any sensible person needs right now.

Labels: animation, dc comics, Europe and Asia, islam and jihad, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, violence