Lots of interesting points here, Liza. Unfashionable ones, too, but that's why we come to Substack. I commend you for publishing so much material that you know people are going to disagree with. If only more writers felt the same way!
Wow, you're brave to write this. I agree, though. One further point: the idea pushed on us is that our fantasies are part of ourselves and not acting on them is denying a part of ourselves and thereby harming ourselves. This is not true. It is true that our fantasies are part of ourselves, but we are not harming ourselves by not acting on them. Not all fantasies should be acted out. This has nothing to do with sex. I have a daydream fantasy about being invited as a guest on a podcast. In reality, I would be terrible at this. I am autistic and have social anxiety and would be a confused mess if I had to speak off-the-cuff. It's fine to have the fantasy, but not to act it out. This applies to many other things too.
Thank you for speaking out about the immorality of exploitive sexual practices. We live in a society that seeks to gratify even base forms of self-indulgence. We call bad behavior "personal fulfillment" and pretend that it is essential for "mental wellness." We think we should "tolerate" others "lifestyle choices," even those that are grotesque and harmful. There is a left-leaning tendency to regard immoral, destructive behavior as one's right because one is a member of the flavor-of-the-month class of (oppressed) human being. We pretend that as long as participants "consent"— that magic legal word— there will be no harm, despite the absurdity that people believe consent can be retracted post facto, and that an adult (woman) is incompetent to give consent. Moral damage occurs when we treat other people as objects for our personal fantasies, especially when those fantasies involve degrading, disrespectful, and reductive attitudes. Morality calls us to become an adults. The moral imperative demands that we reflect upon, restrict, and remediate whatever harm one brings to others because of emotional, personal issues that need a deeper level of resolution. Acting out fantasies that cause harm and approving such behavior in others is the definition of evil.
This is interesting. I just wrote a somewhat-related piece called "The Dark Side of Romantasy," in which I discuss the rising trend of dark, brooding male love interests in YA fantasy and romance genres. As an author, I owe it to my readers—especially teens and young adults with less romantic experience—to consider the prospective I give on relationships. The more content you consume, the lower your threshold becomes for what's considered normal.
I have to say you're brave for seeking literary representation--from a group whose ideological bents you skewer often and well--while simultaneously publishing stuff like this that's most definitely going to hurt your chances in the former endeavor! Hopefully you don't stop doing either one, and that you continue successfully in both.
👏👏👏 This was the shot heard round the world in article form! The #MeToo Movement had some good effects but was overall a very bad thing for our society. It turned into a witch hunt of innocent men, led to people’s careers and reputations being wrongly destroyed and badly damaged gender relations in the United States. None of this is to say that sexual misconduct in the workplace is not a real problem or that male predators do not exist. But the #MeToo Movement was NOT the solution to these very serious societal problems! Nonetheless, there can be no doubt Neil Gaiman is a terrible person and guilty as sin. BDSM is barbaric, depraved and dangerous. I was not aware there was an increase in sex toy injuries after the garbage book Fifty Shades of Gray came out but I can’t say I’m surprised. I fail to see how beating, chaining, whipping, humiliating, and gaslighting someone you love is sexy. Women need to be given the language necessary to talk about how abused they feel because of these experiences. If you get off to stuff like that, you need to seek help. I think the reason our society is the way it is because from the 1960s to the present, the pendulum swung too far in the other direction. We went from “don’t judge people for their living situation.” and “let’s be more open about sex.” to normalizing and celebrating things like premarital sex, having children out of wedlock, divorce, cohabitation, childlessness, and sleeping around. We’ve also gone to the other extreme when it comes to sex. In the 1950s the problem was sex was completely taboo and you couldn’t talk about. But today the problem is we’ve gone to the other extreme of being too open about it and it’s everywhere now. People think it’s okay nowadays to tell the world about whatever fetish they have, wear bondage equipment in public, expose children to sex toys and graphic books that discuss it, and even try to normalize stuff like polygamy, polyarmy, pedophilia, and zoophilia. Not to mention hook up culture and porn getting more and more violent and darker and children being exposed to it at younger and younger ages. I should also note that the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s was not entirely a good thing. Any woman who lived in a Hippie commune will tell you that free love was unsatisfying and made them miserable. They only truly became happy when they settled down in a healthy, monogamous relationship with a man they truly loved, got married and had children. Also, the Sexual Revolution saw adult men dating and having sex with underage girls. An example of how we in American society have become a little TOO open about sex is something I saw in Liza’s Instagram comments a couple weeks ago. A man left an obscene comment to Liza asking her a total stranger mind you out of nowhere, to “read Dostoevsky to me and then beat me with the book.” Liza was disgusted, was understandably not happy with that and responded “Take you’re desires elsewhere.” The guy was a total creep and what he said was totally inappropriate, but he felt it was okay to talk about his fetishes publicly and to ask a woman he’s never met before to engage in it with him on a social media platform in front of hundreds of thousands of people. Why is that? Because people today are told we must accept anyone’s kinks and if you don’t you’re being close-minded, judgmental, mean, etc. This has to stop! We need to restore traditional sexual mores, draw clear lines as a society about what is acceptable and what is not, restore the nuclear family, bring down divorce rates, increase birth rates, and stigmatize hook-up culture. None of this is to say a degree of sexual freedom or openness about sex shouldn’t be aloud, that one shouldn’t be able to explore or have fun with sex or that gay marriage or LGBT civil rights should be revoked. What I am saying is we need to restore traditional values around marriage and sex and have standards as a society.
Overall, I think this is a thoughtful article, and I mostly agree with your perspective (I support traditional sexual ethics and lean conservative), but I have some reservations (which, as a disclaimer, may stem from me misunderstanding your argument!).
But anyways, what makes me a bit queasy about this piece is that it feels like it leans way too much into blaming men, which weakens the argument. Take this line, for example: “Without a society that promotes traditional values—without a world where men treat women with the utmost respect, especially in the bedroom—we risk severely damaging our women, if not physically then psychologically.”
I get what you're going for, but it feels overly simplistic to frame this as men being solely responsible for sexual degeneracy. You even acknowledge that progressivism—supported by many women—helped create this culture, but then you retreat into what feels like a motte-and-bailey argument, focusing primarily on men as the bad actors. Like when you write: “Of course the literary world, which routinely encourages and even celebrates BDSM, would create a man like Gaiman—a man with no respect for the institution of marriage, family values, or female autonomy who derives pleasure from seeing women in utterly degrading and humiliating situations.”
I mean, sure, men like Gaiman exist, but isn’t it just as important to point out that there’s no shortage of women who embrace and enjoy this sexually liberal culture too? Plenty of women would actively reject the idea of traditional sexual mores, calling them oppressive. Sex-positive feminism literally thrives on this narrative. Framing it as just men being exploitative, while ignoring that some women are just as enthusiastic about pushing this kind of thing, feels reductive.
It reminds me of Louise Perry’s “red-pill feminism,” where she critiques the sexual revolution but argues that women are essentially victims of it—stripped of their agency by progressivism. She employs shitty evo-psych about the female brain to absolve them of any agency. According to Perry, abusive men exploit this system and women are left holding the bag. I can’t help but wonder if this is her way of trying to appease feminists while sneaking in an argument for sexual conservatism. Either way, her “myth of female agency” idea feels pretty weak, because it assumes women aren’t active participants in shaping these dynamics.
Your article risks falling into the same trap. If you’re going to critique sexual liberalism, it’d be stronger to frame it as a shared cultural problem, not a “men bad, women victims” narrative. Why not focus on mutual respect and the societal benefits of traditional values? Otherwise, it alienates the very people who might agree with you—like the men (and women) who are tired of sexual liberalism’s vapidity but also don’t see themselves as moral scapegoats.
I actually mostly agree with this—I just think that coming from this with the female perspective, I’ve seen so many women be pressured to agree to things or act a certain way because of male preferences. In other words, most women don’t want to be sex positive. An overwhelming majority would love to have one sex partner and lead normal sex lives. But men today don’t want that, so women have to improvise. Because we’ve created a hookup culture that I’d argue is vastly antifeminist because it plays into what men want, women go through mental gymnastics convincing themselves that they are all for sex positivity and sexual liberation etc. So while I do agree that it’s a two way street, I think that men have been largely responsible for convincing women to act like this with an overall lack of respect towards traditional values and a predilection towards unmitigated sex. Women have no choice but to go with it if they want any hope of being with a man.
I see more and more women my age and bit older (late 20s/early 30s) feeling resentful towards contemporary sex positive culture. And they aren’t all conservative religious women either. They just want a normal monogamous relationship with “vanilla” sex but have given up dating because men want everything but that.
I think you probably had a bunch of women who were much more adventurous than average who started this in the 60s (they had a lot of help from men at that point!) and then it turned into a sort of preference cascade where the old women's cartel against easy sex basically broke down over 30 years. But it doesn't seem to be men driving it now; the people running the culture seem to be female *at this point* from what I can tell. Were there Herbert Marcuse types who got the ball rolling back in the 60s? Yeah, probably, from what I can tell of the era. But they'd probably just wind up like Neil Gaiman now.
Given the intervening 60 years I'm not sure how many women would really go back to the 50s even if you gave them the chance, honestly. How many of them would want to be chaste until marriage and run the risk of finding out they or the guy are gay (or otherwise incompatible)? A lot of them seem to enjoy the whole sleeping-around-before-marriage thing from what I can see, though by the time I started of course I was looking at the ones who hadn't paired off in their twenties, so you've got a hell of a sampling bias.
I do think Louise Perry speaks for a sort of conservative woman. I wonder how much of the population that really is at this point. (That's a genuine question, BTW.) As for Kathleen Stock...frankly she mostly speaks for lesbians. One of the big problems with the culture war is the left was dominant for so long the right had to find speakers with 'diversity points' to get purchase...so you had TERFs leading the charge against a lot of the more extreme trans points. But their views are often quite disparate from the general public.
Serious question: how well do church (or in your case, temple) groups serve as an alternative to the hookup culture for people who want one? One of the the things I always admired about the Mormons was they gave people who wanted it a way to live like it was 1960. Not my cup of tea at this point, but if it were around near me and I was 20 and knew the way the rest of my life were going to go I might have considered.
(Ironically, in my college days I wanted to wait until marriage, but was too scared to do anything. When I finally started dating in my late twenties virginity was totally off the table--I was more or less pressured into sex by my first girlfriend! That's very unusual and not really relevant, I guess; my debut was so late I'm not sure my observations count for much.)
You make potent points here about the effect of feminism's 'anything goes' approach to sex -- and consent. I touch on this in my novel (almost complete) SEXODUS, in which the protagonist, a cat lady in her 50s, reflects on how consent or not, cheap sex always made her feel disgusted with herself, yet the Arbiters of Correct Opinions insist that it's gratifying -- as long as it's consensual!
I attended a workshop last summer, held by NYFA, in which the panelists -- all "queer' in one way or another, went on and on about identity and queerness as qualifiers for getting published. I was later attacked on X by one of the panelists for daring to suggest that quality should outweigh identity. For this I was labeled a "racist colonizer."
I bring this up because of the preponderance of sexual content in a workshop that promised to convey how to write a good cover letter to sell your material. Being "queer," or a "big fat black dyke" is what sells, according to these people.
What feminism did -- I was in my 20s in the 80s -- was insist on counterproductive sexual behaviors to the point where I felt guilty for saying no. I felt pushed into sleeping around against my own interests. If I didn't enjoy being used, somehow that was my problem. This is the gaslighting that you're referring to. In fact, I find much feminist narrative to be a form of gaslighting.
That said, Gaiman's behavior was horrible, however -- if these women gave consent to it. then they have to take responsibility for giving their consent, regardless of how awful he was, or how awful these consensual degradations made them feel. Was he married when they agreed to this? They should have said no. It would be one thing if he forced them, against their will, but if he laid it on the table and they agreed to his terms, they signed the contract. I went through a traumatic experience working with a woman on a project who belonged to a cult. She was manipulative, conniving, and a master gas lighter. The effect on my psyche really took its toll. However, at the end of the day, I couldn't get out of having signed a contract agreeing to her abusive terms. I learned a very valuable lesson. I saw the red flags from the get go, but did not heed them. People of all stripes can take advantage of the vulnerable in all sorts of ways. Frankly, the damage this woman did far outweighed some of my worst experiences with men.
In my novel, the protagonist likewise reflects on a sexual experience in which she said NO, and it was too late -- he went ahead anyway (many variables to this, most notably, a drunken, hazy situation); at the same time, the protagonist had a female roommate who tortured her in all kinds of ways that are not illegal, and which damaged the protagonist far more.
In other words, Gaiman sounds like a malignant narcissist. Sexual degradation is his thing. If I understand correctly, he gained consent from his victims. His victims should have said no thanks. They didn't, probably because they wanted access to a famous person. In my opinion, they need to take responsibility for that choice.
And in the meantime, I agree wholeheartedly, that the first step in encouraging women to say no to these damaging experiences, is to bring back a conservative approach to sex, and to imbue women with the value of protecting themselves, as opposed to engaging in reckless behaviors.
I always did wonder, back when third-wave was the thing, why they were encouraging every single woman to sleep around. I was reading the account of a woman who was trying to get into casual sex without emotional attachment, and I was wondering, "why would you want that? Like, I don't mind if you sleep around, but if you don't want to sleep around, that's OK too!"
I think this is actually the same as the kink thing--there's a subset of women who are very sexually active and like things a lot of others don't and want to make their behaviors the norm. The Gaimans of the world will take advantage of that, as they took advantage of shame around rape back in the 1950s and earlier. And women like your manipulative cult leader will take advantage of feminism. It's a tale as old as humanity.
I know next to nothing about BDSM (and I live in Berlin—how boring is that?), so I cannot say anything coherent on that topic, but I think there is at least one more ugly social mechanism at play here. What I mean is the institute of idolization. Throughout his literary career, Gaiman tried to look like a rock star. I can't say I am entirely surprised that in the end he ended up behaving like one, in the worst possible sense. But the relationship between rock stars and their groupies is exceptionally disturbing and damaging to the groupies, and it's been going on for decades. This is just another aspect of this relationship: idolization of one's talent eventually leads to idealization of their person, and that leads to sexual exploitation. Even without the four-letter acronyms, this is pretty shitty.
Yes. It is still entirely his choices, his fault, and his responsibility that led to all the unpleasantness, but he is a part of a larger societal mechanism, which is problematic in itself.
There will be more Gaimans, as long as we all like them as much as we do, which is a sad thought.
Literature is in a pretty screwed up place when, on one hand, academics attack real authors for daring to perpetuate the "writer's mythos" while, on the other hand, the industry (both Gaimanesque authors and other figures) standardizes the practices of some past authors into a one-size-fits-all lifestyle choice of perversion that authors should adhere to; a straightjacket that is itself a corruption of the writer's mythos.
One is guilty of assaulting the writer's individual space irrespective of how moral they are (the preassumed notion being that the writer developing a mythos = evil because dumb, cynical postmodern reasons that are nothing more than an attempt to intellectually justify writer envy); while the others are guilty for trying to assert a perverted influence upon the authorial persona.
Literature is also an unsurprising place when the author of a novel where men get eaten by vaginas also gets "eaten" by his own desires. Still, given the past patterns of recent sexual "revelations" - you mentioned MeToo, which is a big one, but there have been many that have conveniently emerged when someone does something politically disagreeable - one wonders if Gaiman did something that pissed someone off. One can criticize him while asking that question: two things can be true at the same time.
As far as BDSM is concerned: I have yet to hear an argument convincing me of the health of BDSM practices, not to mention the morality. Interestingly, Venus in Furs (unlike de Sade who was simultaneously a perverse charlatan and the logical conclusion of Enlightenment morality) was about masochism but it is not a pro-masochist novel. The premise of its unhealthiness is everywhere in the book and the author (Leopold von Sacher-Masoch) came to hate the use of his name in 'masochism.' At its depth, the book is about a man's inability to have healthy relationships with women and the consequences of said inability: in a way, it also anticipates Gaiman's behavior.
Just discovered your Substack, by the way. I'm happy to know I'm not the only one who has an alternative opinion on the state of literature today. Keep up the good work!
I kind of wondered if Gaiman had looked at the wrong person wrong myself. Who knows?
Honestly, there's a spectrum ranging from telling your partner to put on your favorite lingerie to the Armin Meiwes case (don't Google that before lunch or dinner), and everyone's going to draw the line in different places. What if you give them precise instructions as to what to wear to bed? Stand over them mock-menacingly? Hold them down with your body weight? Use a silk scarf? A necktie? How about padded handcuffs as in the article picture? What if they're not padded? (We're assuming they are actually into this, of course.) I'll stop here out of respect for Liza, but sex often involves some kind of power inequity, and women are predominantly attracted to powerful men (ask any politician).
I think, with feminists making any kind of male dominance wrong, they created a huge opening for kink because, well, now it's taboo, right? And that's sexy! I've actually seen people argue the 1950s household is a dom/sub kink! (Ages ago when I started dating a girl told me she wanted me to be the boss, and my thought was, "Oh, this is like those BDSM things without the whips." The abnormal has become the normal, and vice versa.) I think if they had banned affection instead we'd have all kinds of cheesy romantic fantasies circulating on Archive of Our Own.
Seriously, if you have daughters or something and they're on the apps, tell them to make it perfectly clear they're vanilla (=not kinky), and that should raise the legal risk to an unacceptable level for any guy with other plans. After all, you have written proof of lack of consent!
Daring to take on BDSM?! And questioning if consent is the only sexual consideration that matters? Bravo!
(And that from one who thinks we usually under-estimate the animal nature, i.e. biology, of our sexuality and over-estimate the moral dimensions of sexuality.)
One minor disagreement: "... a general culture of emasculation to the point where many men are now afraid to approach women even in the most benign of social settings."
I am not seeing emasculation or fear. Rather, it is a rational, and obvious, cost/risk/benefit assessment. Low probability but high risk interactions are not worth initiating. The default option is simply maintain arms length, and engage in cool, minimalist interactions with women in most situations, and avoiding initiating IRL interactions unnecessarily. It becomes a habitual default option. There is no fear, or emasculation, involved. Young men who are interested in romantic or sexual partners will interact by means of apps, which is now the norm.
I have spoken to a lot of men my age, and there’s seems to be a general fear around in-person contact being interpreted as “creepy,” even when it should be normal human interaction. I see this as a large consequence of #MeToo
I’d agree with Liza on this one. I have friends with younger male siblings (18-26), and there is a fear. A fear of being a creep or a fear of being rejected are the main ones. Both the #metoo movement and “toxic masculinity”, has taken a toll on young men in society.
Agreed that the cultural change occurred following #MeToo.
Agreed also that it is now universally recognized that an unsolicited interaction initiated by a man with a woman in person may be perceived as "creepy" or threatening or inappropriate. And there is no way for the man to know in advance if the woman will have that perception -- so he has to assume she will.
I am sure that if people tell you they feel subjective fear, they really do.
What I am seeing is more of an adjustment in routine activity to minimize the occasions and risk of interaction. More of a new normal, rather than fear.
It may be an age thing. Young men may be afraid, because they have an urge to approach women, which involves risk, or even just looking at them, which can also be risky. Old men, especially married men, just treat women they don't know, especially younger ones, in the post #MeToo world, as avoidable hazards in the environment, and act accordingly. It is a lot tougher for the young guys, obviously.
Really good article. Although, I do have to point out that unfortunately "traditional" societies aren't all that good at preventing or appropriately dealing with sexual abuse either-- using another recent literary scandal as my example, that of Alice Munro. I grew up about a half-hour drive from Munro's hometown, in a deeply puritanical part of Ontario. Let me tell you: as shocking as the case was, one thing I was not at all surprised by is the extent to which Fremlin's misdeeds were covered up, even after many involved parties knew. Traditional societies are quite good at these things. This one is, at least.
This article egregiously mischaracterizes BDSM, consent, marriage, gender dynamics and the impacts of the #MeToo movement. Your argument that failing to promote “traditional values” risks harm to women is unhinged.
And the fact that a man is telling a woman that her take on women is incorrect is also wild. Stop a moment and think about why so many women are broken in our society. It’s because men have stopped stepping up for them and say shit like this, assuming that they know best what women wants when a literal WOMAN is speaking out in favor of protecting our women.
I had similar thoughts. I can understand wanting to be cautious about what gets a pass and what doesn’t, but Libes’ piece claims several times that BDSM culture is seen as virtuous and desirable in our culture. Honestly, I just don’t see it. Maybe in certain circles, but nowhere near to the extent that this post suggests. I’ll admit that it’s really strange for a literary agent to have their sexual adventures posted in their bio, but I hardly think that justifies a blanket statement.
Furthermore, how certain can we be of BDSM culture’s role in the creation of someone like Gaiman? Libes implies that the culture is almost rampant and entirely unhinged, letting any and all entertain their darkest desires. Yet, consent comes up in these circles, right? Did Gaiman miss the memo?
Idk maybe I should do a little more research, but I don’t find this article very convincing. There’s a lot of emphasis placed on conservative, Christian ethics here. While that isn’t necessarily a problem on its own, I want to point out that Christianity is capable of its own extreme evils surrounding sex (e.g. Puritanism, purity culture, homosexual repression, conversation therapy etc.).
Perhaps you’re right. Admittedly, I don’t have that many connections in the literary world. I could be missing it.
Additionally, I wanted to apologize for my comment. I thought about it after posting and though I still don’t feel entirely convinced, I think some of my points were rather clumsy. I’ll think on this more and do my research.
You're right, but I think it's coming from the women. They're the ones running things in publishing at this point. They won't even publish men unless they're gay or have some diversity angle!
Lots of interesting points here, Liza. Unfashionable ones, too, but that's why we come to Substack. I commend you for publishing so much material that you know people are going to disagree with. If only more writers felt the same way!
Agreed.
Wow, you're brave to write this. I agree, though. One further point: the idea pushed on us is that our fantasies are part of ourselves and not acting on them is denying a part of ourselves and thereby harming ourselves. This is not true. It is true that our fantasies are part of ourselves, but we are not harming ourselves by not acting on them. Not all fantasies should be acted out. This has nothing to do with sex. I have a daydream fantasy about being invited as a guest on a podcast. In reality, I would be terrible at this. I am autistic and have social anxiety and would be a confused mess if I had to speak off-the-cuff. It's fine to have the fantasy, but not to act it out. This applies to many other things too.
Ha! I have that too. Can we be friends? I would DIE if I had to be on a podcast!
Thank you for speaking out about the immorality of exploitive sexual practices. We live in a society that seeks to gratify even base forms of self-indulgence. We call bad behavior "personal fulfillment" and pretend that it is essential for "mental wellness." We think we should "tolerate" others "lifestyle choices," even those that are grotesque and harmful. There is a left-leaning tendency to regard immoral, destructive behavior as one's right because one is a member of the flavor-of-the-month class of (oppressed) human being. We pretend that as long as participants "consent"— that magic legal word— there will be no harm, despite the absurdity that people believe consent can be retracted post facto, and that an adult (woman) is incompetent to give consent. Moral damage occurs when we treat other people as objects for our personal fantasies, especially when those fantasies involve degrading, disrespectful, and reductive attitudes. Morality calls us to become an adults. The moral imperative demands that we reflect upon, restrict, and remediate whatever harm one brings to others because of emotional, personal issues that need a deeper level of resolution. Acting out fantasies that cause harm and approving such behavior in others is the definition of evil.
This is interesting. I just wrote a somewhat-related piece called "The Dark Side of Romantasy," in which I discuss the rising trend of dark, brooding male love interests in YA fantasy and romance genres. As an author, I owe it to my readers—especially teens and young adults with less romantic experience—to consider the prospective I give on relationships. The more content you consume, the lower your threshold becomes for what's considered normal.
I have to say you're brave for seeking literary representation--from a group whose ideological bents you skewer often and well--while simultaneously publishing stuff like this that's most definitely going to hurt your chances in the former endeavor! Hopefully you don't stop doing either one, and that you continue successfully in both.
👏👏👏 This was the shot heard round the world in article form! The #MeToo Movement had some good effects but was overall a very bad thing for our society. It turned into a witch hunt of innocent men, led to people’s careers and reputations being wrongly destroyed and badly damaged gender relations in the United States. None of this is to say that sexual misconduct in the workplace is not a real problem or that male predators do not exist. But the #MeToo Movement was NOT the solution to these very serious societal problems! Nonetheless, there can be no doubt Neil Gaiman is a terrible person and guilty as sin. BDSM is barbaric, depraved and dangerous. I was not aware there was an increase in sex toy injuries after the garbage book Fifty Shades of Gray came out but I can’t say I’m surprised. I fail to see how beating, chaining, whipping, humiliating, and gaslighting someone you love is sexy. Women need to be given the language necessary to talk about how abused they feel because of these experiences. If you get off to stuff like that, you need to seek help. I think the reason our society is the way it is because from the 1960s to the present, the pendulum swung too far in the other direction. We went from “don’t judge people for their living situation.” and “let’s be more open about sex.” to normalizing and celebrating things like premarital sex, having children out of wedlock, divorce, cohabitation, childlessness, and sleeping around. We’ve also gone to the other extreme when it comes to sex. In the 1950s the problem was sex was completely taboo and you couldn’t talk about. But today the problem is we’ve gone to the other extreme of being too open about it and it’s everywhere now. People think it’s okay nowadays to tell the world about whatever fetish they have, wear bondage equipment in public, expose children to sex toys and graphic books that discuss it, and even try to normalize stuff like polygamy, polyarmy, pedophilia, and zoophilia. Not to mention hook up culture and porn getting more and more violent and darker and children being exposed to it at younger and younger ages. I should also note that the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s was not entirely a good thing. Any woman who lived in a Hippie commune will tell you that free love was unsatisfying and made them miserable. They only truly became happy when they settled down in a healthy, monogamous relationship with a man they truly loved, got married and had children. Also, the Sexual Revolution saw adult men dating and having sex with underage girls. An example of how we in American society have become a little TOO open about sex is something I saw in Liza’s Instagram comments a couple weeks ago. A man left an obscene comment to Liza asking her a total stranger mind you out of nowhere, to “read Dostoevsky to me and then beat me with the book.” Liza was disgusted, was understandably not happy with that and responded “Take you’re desires elsewhere.” The guy was a total creep and what he said was totally inappropriate, but he felt it was okay to talk about his fetishes publicly and to ask a woman he’s never met before to engage in it with him on a social media platform in front of hundreds of thousands of people. Why is that? Because people today are told we must accept anyone’s kinks and if you don’t you’re being close-minded, judgmental, mean, etc. This has to stop! We need to restore traditional sexual mores, draw clear lines as a society about what is acceptable and what is not, restore the nuclear family, bring down divorce rates, increase birth rates, and stigmatize hook-up culture. None of this is to say a degree of sexual freedom or openness about sex shouldn’t be aloud, that one shouldn’t be able to explore or have fun with sex or that gay marriage or LGBT civil rights should be revoked. What I am saying is we need to restore traditional values around marriage and sex and have standards as a society.
Overall, I think this is a thoughtful article, and I mostly agree with your perspective (I support traditional sexual ethics and lean conservative), but I have some reservations (which, as a disclaimer, may stem from me misunderstanding your argument!).
But anyways, what makes me a bit queasy about this piece is that it feels like it leans way too much into blaming men, which weakens the argument. Take this line, for example: “Without a society that promotes traditional values—without a world where men treat women with the utmost respect, especially in the bedroom—we risk severely damaging our women, if not physically then psychologically.”
I get what you're going for, but it feels overly simplistic to frame this as men being solely responsible for sexual degeneracy. You even acknowledge that progressivism—supported by many women—helped create this culture, but then you retreat into what feels like a motte-and-bailey argument, focusing primarily on men as the bad actors. Like when you write: “Of course the literary world, which routinely encourages and even celebrates BDSM, would create a man like Gaiman—a man with no respect for the institution of marriage, family values, or female autonomy who derives pleasure from seeing women in utterly degrading and humiliating situations.”
I mean, sure, men like Gaiman exist, but isn’t it just as important to point out that there’s no shortage of women who embrace and enjoy this sexually liberal culture too? Plenty of women would actively reject the idea of traditional sexual mores, calling them oppressive. Sex-positive feminism literally thrives on this narrative. Framing it as just men being exploitative, while ignoring that some women are just as enthusiastic about pushing this kind of thing, feels reductive.
It reminds me of Louise Perry’s “red-pill feminism,” where she critiques the sexual revolution but argues that women are essentially victims of it—stripped of their agency by progressivism. She employs shitty evo-psych about the female brain to absolve them of any agency. According to Perry, abusive men exploit this system and women are left holding the bag. I can’t help but wonder if this is her way of trying to appease feminists while sneaking in an argument for sexual conservatism. Either way, her “myth of female agency” idea feels pretty weak, because it assumes women aren’t active participants in shaping these dynamics.
Your article risks falling into the same trap. If you’re going to critique sexual liberalism, it’d be stronger to frame it as a shared cultural problem, not a “men bad, women victims” narrative. Why not focus on mutual respect and the societal benefits of traditional values? Otherwise, it alienates the very people who might agree with you—like the men (and women) who are tired of sexual liberalism’s vapidity but also don’t see themselves as moral scapegoats.
I actually mostly agree with this—I just think that coming from this with the female perspective, I’ve seen so many women be pressured to agree to things or act a certain way because of male preferences. In other words, most women don’t want to be sex positive. An overwhelming majority would love to have one sex partner and lead normal sex lives. But men today don’t want that, so women have to improvise. Because we’ve created a hookup culture that I’d argue is vastly antifeminist because it plays into what men want, women go through mental gymnastics convincing themselves that they are all for sex positivity and sexual liberation etc. So while I do agree that it’s a two way street, I think that men have been largely responsible for convincing women to act like this with an overall lack of respect towards traditional values and a predilection towards unmitigated sex. Women have no choice but to go with it if they want any hope of being with a man.
I see more and more women my age and bit older (late 20s/early 30s) feeling resentful towards contemporary sex positive culture. And they aren’t all conservative religious women either. They just want a normal monogamous relationship with “vanilla” sex but have given up dating because men want everything but that.
I think you probably had a bunch of women who were much more adventurous than average who started this in the 60s (they had a lot of help from men at that point!) and then it turned into a sort of preference cascade where the old women's cartel against easy sex basically broke down over 30 years. But it doesn't seem to be men driving it now; the people running the culture seem to be female *at this point* from what I can tell. Were there Herbert Marcuse types who got the ball rolling back in the 60s? Yeah, probably, from what I can tell of the era. But they'd probably just wind up like Neil Gaiman now.
Given the intervening 60 years I'm not sure how many women would really go back to the 50s even if you gave them the chance, honestly. How many of them would want to be chaste until marriage and run the risk of finding out they or the guy are gay (or otherwise incompatible)? A lot of them seem to enjoy the whole sleeping-around-before-marriage thing from what I can see, though by the time I started of course I was looking at the ones who hadn't paired off in their twenties, so you've got a hell of a sampling bias.
I do think Louise Perry speaks for a sort of conservative woman. I wonder how much of the population that really is at this point. (That's a genuine question, BTW.) As for Kathleen Stock...frankly she mostly speaks for lesbians. One of the big problems with the culture war is the left was dominant for so long the right had to find speakers with 'diversity points' to get purchase...so you had TERFs leading the charge against a lot of the more extreme trans points. But their views are often quite disparate from the general public.
Serious question: how well do church (or in your case, temple) groups serve as an alternative to the hookup culture for people who want one? One of the the things I always admired about the Mormons was they gave people who wanted it a way to live like it was 1960. Not my cup of tea at this point, but if it were around near me and I was 20 and knew the way the rest of my life were going to go I might have considered.
(Ironically, in my college days I wanted to wait until marriage, but was too scared to do anything. When I finally started dating in my late twenties virginity was totally off the table--I was more or less pressured into sex by my first girlfriend! That's very unusual and not really relevant, I guess; my debut was so late I'm not sure my observations count for much.)
You make potent points here about the effect of feminism's 'anything goes' approach to sex -- and consent. I touch on this in my novel (almost complete) SEXODUS, in which the protagonist, a cat lady in her 50s, reflects on how consent or not, cheap sex always made her feel disgusted with herself, yet the Arbiters of Correct Opinions insist that it's gratifying -- as long as it's consensual!
I attended a workshop last summer, held by NYFA, in which the panelists -- all "queer' in one way or another, went on and on about identity and queerness as qualifiers for getting published. I was later attacked on X by one of the panelists for daring to suggest that quality should outweigh identity. For this I was labeled a "racist colonizer."
I bring this up because of the preponderance of sexual content in a workshop that promised to convey how to write a good cover letter to sell your material. Being "queer," or a "big fat black dyke" is what sells, according to these people.
What feminism did -- I was in my 20s in the 80s -- was insist on counterproductive sexual behaviors to the point where I felt guilty for saying no. I felt pushed into sleeping around against my own interests. If I didn't enjoy being used, somehow that was my problem. This is the gaslighting that you're referring to. In fact, I find much feminist narrative to be a form of gaslighting.
That said, Gaiman's behavior was horrible, however -- if these women gave consent to it. then they have to take responsibility for giving their consent, regardless of how awful he was, or how awful these consensual degradations made them feel. Was he married when they agreed to this? They should have said no. It would be one thing if he forced them, against their will, but if he laid it on the table and they agreed to his terms, they signed the contract. I went through a traumatic experience working with a woman on a project who belonged to a cult. She was manipulative, conniving, and a master gas lighter. The effect on my psyche really took its toll. However, at the end of the day, I couldn't get out of having signed a contract agreeing to her abusive terms. I learned a very valuable lesson. I saw the red flags from the get go, but did not heed them. People of all stripes can take advantage of the vulnerable in all sorts of ways. Frankly, the damage this woman did far outweighed some of my worst experiences with men.
In my novel, the protagonist likewise reflects on a sexual experience in which she said NO, and it was too late -- he went ahead anyway (many variables to this, most notably, a drunken, hazy situation); at the same time, the protagonist had a female roommate who tortured her in all kinds of ways that are not illegal, and which damaged the protagonist far more.
In other words, Gaiman sounds like a malignant narcissist. Sexual degradation is his thing. If I understand correctly, he gained consent from his victims. His victims should have said no thanks. They didn't, probably because they wanted access to a famous person. In my opinion, they need to take responsibility for that choice.
And in the meantime, I agree wholeheartedly, that the first step in encouraging women to say no to these damaging experiences, is to bring back a conservative approach to sex, and to imbue women with the value of protecting themselves, as opposed to engaging in reckless behaviors.
I always did wonder, back when third-wave was the thing, why they were encouraging every single woman to sleep around. I was reading the account of a woman who was trying to get into casual sex without emotional attachment, and I was wondering, "why would you want that? Like, I don't mind if you sleep around, but if you don't want to sleep around, that's OK too!"
I think this is actually the same as the kink thing--there's a subset of women who are very sexually active and like things a lot of others don't and want to make their behaviors the norm. The Gaimans of the world will take advantage of that, as they took advantage of shame around rape back in the 1950s and earlier. And women like your manipulative cult leader will take advantage of feminism. It's a tale as old as humanity.
I know next to nothing about BDSM (and I live in Berlin—how boring is that?), so I cannot say anything coherent on that topic, but I think there is at least one more ugly social mechanism at play here. What I mean is the institute of idolization. Throughout his literary career, Gaiman tried to look like a rock star. I can't say I am entirely surprised that in the end he ended up behaving like one, in the worst possible sense. But the relationship between rock stars and their groupies is exceptionally disturbing and damaging to the groupies, and it's been going on for decades. This is just another aspect of this relationship: idolization of one's talent eventually leads to idealization of their person, and that leads to sexual exploitation. Even without the four-letter acronyms, this is pretty shitty.
Right—he developed a God complex in many ways, and that always leads to behavior like we saw in him.
Yes. It is still entirely his choices, his fault, and his responsibility that led to all the unpleasantness, but he is a part of a larger societal mechanism, which is problematic in itself.
There will be more Gaimans, as long as we all like them as much as we do, which is a sad thought.
Ugh. Agree with lots of points you made
Literature is in a pretty screwed up place when, on one hand, academics attack real authors for daring to perpetuate the "writer's mythos" while, on the other hand, the industry (both Gaimanesque authors and other figures) standardizes the practices of some past authors into a one-size-fits-all lifestyle choice of perversion that authors should adhere to; a straightjacket that is itself a corruption of the writer's mythos.
One is guilty of assaulting the writer's individual space irrespective of how moral they are (the preassumed notion being that the writer developing a mythos = evil because dumb, cynical postmodern reasons that are nothing more than an attempt to intellectually justify writer envy); while the others are guilty for trying to assert a perverted influence upon the authorial persona.
Literature is also an unsurprising place when the author of a novel where men get eaten by vaginas also gets "eaten" by his own desires. Still, given the past patterns of recent sexual "revelations" - you mentioned MeToo, which is a big one, but there have been many that have conveniently emerged when someone does something politically disagreeable - one wonders if Gaiman did something that pissed someone off. One can criticize him while asking that question: two things can be true at the same time.
As far as BDSM is concerned: I have yet to hear an argument convincing me of the health of BDSM practices, not to mention the morality. Interestingly, Venus in Furs (unlike de Sade who was simultaneously a perverse charlatan and the logical conclusion of Enlightenment morality) was about masochism but it is not a pro-masochist novel. The premise of its unhealthiness is everywhere in the book and the author (Leopold von Sacher-Masoch) came to hate the use of his name in 'masochism.' At its depth, the book is about a man's inability to have healthy relationships with women and the consequences of said inability: in a way, it also anticipates Gaiman's behavior.
Just discovered your Substack, by the way. I'm happy to know I'm not the only one who has an alternative opinion on the state of literature today. Keep up the good work!
I kind of wondered if Gaiman had looked at the wrong person wrong myself. Who knows?
Honestly, there's a spectrum ranging from telling your partner to put on your favorite lingerie to the Armin Meiwes case (don't Google that before lunch or dinner), and everyone's going to draw the line in different places. What if you give them precise instructions as to what to wear to bed? Stand over them mock-menacingly? Hold them down with your body weight? Use a silk scarf? A necktie? How about padded handcuffs as in the article picture? What if they're not padded? (We're assuming they are actually into this, of course.) I'll stop here out of respect for Liza, but sex often involves some kind of power inequity, and women are predominantly attracted to powerful men (ask any politician).
I think, with feminists making any kind of male dominance wrong, they created a huge opening for kink because, well, now it's taboo, right? And that's sexy! I've actually seen people argue the 1950s household is a dom/sub kink! (Ages ago when I started dating a girl told me she wanted me to be the boss, and my thought was, "Oh, this is like those BDSM things without the whips." The abnormal has become the normal, and vice versa.) I think if they had banned affection instead we'd have all kinds of cheesy romantic fantasies circulating on Archive of Our Own.
Seriously, if you have daughters or something and they're on the apps, tell them to make it perfectly clear they're vanilla (=not kinky), and that should raise the legal risk to an unacceptable level for any guy with other plans. After all, you have written proof of lack of consent!
Daring to take on BDSM?! And questioning if consent is the only sexual consideration that matters? Bravo!
(And that from one who thinks we usually under-estimate the animal nature, i.e. biology, of our sexuality and over-estimate the moral dimensions of sexuality.)
Good.
One minor disagreement: "... a general culture of emasculation to the point where many men are now afraid to approach women even in the most benign of social settings."
I am not seeing emasculation or fear. Rather, it is a rational, and obvious, cost/risk/benefit assessment. Low probability but high risk interactions are not worth initiating. The default option is simply maintain arms length, and engage in cool, minimalist interactions with women in most situations, and avoiding initiating IRL interactions unnecessarily. It becomes a habitual default option. There is no fear, or emasculation, involved. Young men who are interested in romantic or sexual partners will interact by means of apps, which is now the norm.
I have spoken to a lot of men my age, and there’s seems to be a general fear around in-person contact being interpreted as “creepy,” even when it should be normal human interaction. I see this as a large consequence of #MeToo
I’d agree with Liza on this one. I have friends with younger male siblings (18-26), and there is a fear. A fear of being a creep or a fear of being rejected are the main ones. Both the #metoo movement and “toxic masculinity”, has taken a toll on young men in society.
Agreed that the cultural change occurred following #MeToo.
Agreed also that it is now universally recognized that an unsolicited interaction initiated by a man with a woman in person may be perceived as "creepy" or threatening or inappropriate. And there is no way for the man to know in advance if the woman will have that perception -- so he has to assume she will.
I am sure that if people tell you they feel subjective fear, they really do.
What I am seeing is more of an adjustment in routine activity to minimize the occasions and risk of interaction. More of a new normal, rather than fear.
It may be an age thing. Young men may be afraid, because they have an urge to approach women, which involves risk, or even just looking at them, which can also be risky. Old men, especially married men, just treat women they don't know, especially younger ones, in the post #MeToo world, as avoidable hazards in the environment, and act accordingly. It is a lot tougher for the young guys, obviously.
Really good article. Although, I do have to point out that unfortunately "traditional" societies aren't all that good at preventing or appropriately dealing with sexual abuse either-- using another recent literary scandal as my example, that of Alice Munro. I grew up about a half-hour drive from Munro's hometown, in a deeply puritanical part of Ontario. Let me tell you: as shocking as the case was, one thing I was not at all surprised by is the extent to which Fremlin's misdeeds were covered up, even after many involved parties knew. Traditional societies are quite good at these things. This one is, at least.
I don't know what the answer is.
This article egregiously mischaracterizes BDSM, consent, marriage, gender dynamics and the impacts of the #MeToo movement. Your argument that failing to promote “traditional values” risks harm to women is unhinged.
The fact that you are contesting that marriage protects women precisely proves my argument
And the fact that a man is telling a woman that her take on women is incorrect is also wild. Stop a moment and think about why so many women are broken in our society. It’s because men have stopped stepping up for them and say shit like this, assuming that they know best what women wants when a literal WOMAN is speaking out in favor of protecting our women.
If this isn’t mansplaining I don’t know what is. How ironic, a man telling a woman what she should, and shouldn’t be okay with.
You’ll never catch a woman doing that!
Wait, you didn't see the roundtable on masculinity in the NYT by four women?
I was joking. Women do it all the time!
Hehe. Noted.
I had similar thoughts. I can understand wanting to be cautious about what gets a pass and what doesn’t, but Libes’ piece claims several times that BDSM culture is seen as virtuous and desirable in our culture. Honestly, I just don’t see it. Maybe in certain circles, but nowhere near to the extent that this post suggests. I’ll admit that it’s really strange for a literary agent to have their sexual adventures posted in their bio, but I hardly think that justifies a blanket statement.
Furthermore, how certain can we be of BDSM culture’s role in the creation of someone like Gaiman? Libes implies that the culture is almost rampant and entirely unhinged, letting any and all entertain their darkest desires. Yet, consent comes up in these circles, right? Did Gaiman miss the memo?
Idk maybe I should do a little more research, but I don’t find this article very convincing. There’s a lot of emphasis placed on conservative, Christian ethics here. While that isn’t necessarily a problem on its own, I want to point out that Christianity is capable of its own extreme evils surrounding sex (e.g. Puritanism, purity culture, homosexual repression, conversation therapy etc.).
My argument is that it is most rampant in the literary world. Talk to literally anyone in the literary world, and you’ll see my point.
Perhaps you’re right. Admittedly, I don’t have that many connections in the literary world. I could be missing it.
Additionally, I wanted to apologize for my comment. I thought about it after posting and though I still don’t feel entirely convinced, I think some of my points were rather clumsy. I’ll think on this more and do my research.
You're right, but I think it's coming from the women. They're the ones running things in publishing at this point. They won't even publish men unless they're gay or have some diversity angle!
I don’t like it so everybody else has to stop. Is that the gist here?