# Asimov, the serial harasser **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 7, 2020, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094 "2020-01-07T21:57:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2020, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/61 "2020-01-08T22:41:52Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > Yet somehow Asimov found time to marry, have children (Quite impossible to do back then if _alone_ in a small space), divorce, remarry, attend regular meetings of the Baker Street Irregulars, lecture at numerous sci-fi conventions and happily sign autographs afterward, regularly attend the Trap Door Spiders banquet/drinking sessions, attend Gilbert and Sullivan operas, and enjoy a long friendship with Kurt Vonnegut, among others. > > I’m not arguing Asimov was just a regular guy, just that writers are not, as has previously been asserted here, warped into asocial paralysis by a hermetic existence. This. One more datapoint - at the picnic, Asimov was the center of attention. Hal Clement who was also there, was far from the center of attention, though we all knew him and loved his work. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2020, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/62 "2020-01-08T22:44:31Z")
Knowledge was widespread that Asimov was a major libertine going back at least to the 80s. There’s nothing new about that. One thing that bothers me (in addition to unwanted actions) was him getting HIV and dying from it. It was explained as coming from a blood transfusion and it was kept secret for quite a long time. One would think that Asimov of all people would have openly written about it an attempt to dispel prejudices and misconceptions. This makes one think he got it through the more common route and it was kept secret for legal reasons. Don’t want a bunch of one-night-stands coming after him for having unprotected sex while HIV-positive. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2020, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/63 "2020-01-08T22:54:51Z")
> [@nearwildheaven](#): > > I also heard that his son is (was?) autistic and supported himself by distributing child pornography, in the pre-web era. One of the largest [collections](https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Charges-shatter-Asimov-son-s-reclusion-3099867.php) prosecutors had ever seen (SFW). According to other articles, he pleaded to a fine and probation, but it’s hard to find clear accounts of his conviction, because Robert Mueller was the US Attorney for the Northern District of California at the time (i.e., the head federal prosecutor in that district), and searching for the case produces a lot of off-topic hits. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2020, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/64 "2020-01-08T23:20:28Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m kind of the same way. I don’t know he needs to be removed from the shelves, but goddamn, we’re living in a golden age of science fiction right now, and AFAICT Becky Chambers and NK Jemisin and Yoon Ha Lee and Anne Leckie and Nnedi Okorafor and Catherynne Valente aren’t being assholes to everyone around them. Writing-wise, Becky Chambers isn’t wortly to polish Isaac Asimov’s boots. Her writing is some of the fluffiest fluff you will ever encounter. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2020, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/65 "2020-01-08T23:55:59Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > If we are going to be banning works by morally dubious characters, then lets start with the ancient Greeks, half of whom were pederasts. Aeschines most famous oration can be summarised as _Look, I’ll admit I have had my share of bum boys, haven’t we all? But Timarchus is a dirty-whatever-the-346BC-equivalent-term- for “fag” is_ Who said anything about banning his work? It seems to me, we were having a fairly nuanced discussion about how to separate the art from the artist’s behavior. And I think your knee jerk reaction demonstrates why such a conversation is necessary, if anything there seems to be a desire to ban discussions of bad behavior by artists because it seems to upset you so. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2020, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/66 "2020-01-09T00:57:41Z")
> [@Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](#): > > Ugh, the way that quote just… _almost_ achieves self-awareness… and then pauses on the brink and goes, “Nah.” Yeah. ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2020, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/67 "2020-01-09T03:21:50Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > If we are going to be banning works by morally dubious characters, > . . . In no way am I advocating for that. I am only discussing here my personal inclinations. In fact, I view it in the light of a confession of just how over-sensitive I can be about these things. It’s a lot like germ-a-phobia; once something is soiled in my view I have a hard time seeing it as clean again. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2020, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/68 "2020-01-09T03:43:39Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > . > > I read Foundation as a teenager in the late 1980’s. It was clear to me that it dripped with the attitudes we were then working so hard to be shed of. And while there were some ideas there which I found interesting, I wouldn’t recommend it to my daughter. I think she’d find it disgusting. I’ll admit that the Foundation series is steeped in 1950s standards with regard to gender roles, but I wouldn’t call it disgusting for that reason alone. Is there something else there which I’ve forgotten? Moreover, the prequels and sequels Asimov wrote larer did feature strong female characters. Dors Venabli and Blissenobiarella are anything but simpering ingenues. For that matter we can say the same about Arkady Darrell in the original trilogy. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2020, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/69 "2020-01-09T04:38:32Z")
One thing about the Mule is that, while the potential of that character is deeply disturbing as he certainly could have tricked any almost woman into physically desiring him, AFAI can recall he never actually does so. Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2020, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/70 "2020-01-09T06:41:26Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > In no way am I advocating for that. I am only discussing here my personal inclinations. In fact, I view it in the light of a confession of just how over-sensitive I can be about these things. It’s a lot like germ-a-phobia; once something is soiled in my view I have a hard time seeing it as clean again. I think the discussions of an authors or a creators personal life are highly pertinent when analyzing their work. Since all works have a bit of their creator in them. Like the famous monologue in King John (“grief fills the room up of my absent child…”), written by Shakespeare after his son died. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2020, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/71 "2020-01-09T08:06:23Z")
I think it depends on how much I feel like the writer’s personality is in the work. For things like Internet content producers, it usually feels like so much of them is in the work that it affects it. For actors, it depends on how much they play themselves. (For instance, I can’t watch anything with Cosby in it anymore.) With writers, it depend on how much I identify with them and how much of who they are is apparent in the work as I read it. For Asimov, a guy whose works I mostly know for how they’ve influenced SF, the man and the works feel too separate for me to care too much. Maybe if I had more of a connection to his work, it would affect my enjoyment more. Still, what I have read is so cerebral that I forget about the author. That said, I do want to note that, even when I can enjoy the stuff, I don’t ever let my money go towards the creator if they’ve done this crap. I won’t support the human being in the real world. But, if I can enjoy the work, then I will do so. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2020, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/72 "2020-01-09T12:22:35Z")
> [@TruCelt](#): > > The trouble is, there is a disturbing human tendency to assume that all those who are famous are good, and to then use their bad actions to excuse current bad actions. Even the most carefully complete history books will tend to be edited, re-edited and abridged, to the point that only the “important” positives will remain. Then when the negatives are re-discovered it’s a crap-shoot as to whether the historical figure will be de-valued, or the behavior excused. How about that Erskine Caldwell fellow? Sure, he did the poor Southerners a good turn with _Tobacco Road_, but doesn’t his advocacy of eugenics to sterilize poor Whites disqualify him? Do you intend to read “Picking Cotton” again? How about “The People’s Choice”? My point is that most people are forgotten pretty soon after they die. When the history books get abridged, they get trimmed down to a few sentences or cut entirely. Caldwell wrote best-sellers, one of which got turned into a movie, and he isn’t even a trivia answer these days. Asimov will last longer in the SF world (he already has, in fact) but the perception of him will be worn down to “that guy that wrote those books” and probably some mention of the Three Laws, with nary a word about his personal life one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![iguanas.com](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c4cdca/32.png) [@iguanas.com](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iguanas.com)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2020, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/73 "2020-01-09T14:37:05Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > Do eeeet. I can promise you that the panelists will bring it up before any of the audience members do, and at length. > [@](#): > > At the expense of Harlan Ellison?! Did Harlan get his boob grabbed? I’m going to have to re-read that article. Asimov did this to show up Ellison, popularly touted as a womanizer, as a prank. to outdo him. ---
**Author:** ![iguanas.com](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c4cdca/32.png) [@iguanas.com](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iguanas.com)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2020, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/74 "2020-01-09T14:50:24Z")
> [@Malleus\_Incus\_Stapes](#): > > Ugh, the way that quote just… _almost_ achieves self-awareness… and then pauses on the brink and goes, “Nah.” standards have changed. the late 1970s Fritz Leiber novel _Our Lady of Darkness_, set in San Francisco, has a scene where the (male) protagonist goes over to the house of a swinger. he immediately gets pounced on and goosed without his consent by the swinger’s nubile young lover, while he (the swinger) washes in the shadows and snickers. the MC thinks something like “woah…!” and considers it amoral but it doesn’t have a profound effect on him. ---
**Author:** ![iguanas.com](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c4cdca/32.png) [@iguanas.com](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iguanas.com)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2020, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/75 "2020-01-09T15:03:00Z")
that scene lingered in my mind for around forty years after I read it, because I had had a similar experience happen to me IRL and I didn’t know what to make of it… either the scene or the RL experience. I still don’t. the story I won’t go into because I wouldn’t want to derail the thread with (and, frankly, get cross-examined concerning) my real life experience. (I have no shame or bad emotions concerning it.) also, about the original Asimov quote: we don’t know that Asimov didn’t turn around his way of thinking after that happened. absent context, we don’t know. sometimes we just don’t understand an experience until it has happened to us. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2020, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/76 "2020-01-09T15:31:29Z")
> [@iguanas.com](#): > > also, about the original Asimov quote: we don’t know that Asimov didn’t turn around his way of thinking after that happened. absent context, we don’t know. sometimes we just don’t understand an experience until it has happened to us. Yes we do actually - Asimov kept on with the grabby hands long after the events in that quote took place. While it’s not possible to know exactly what’s going on inside of someone else’s mind, it’s certainly possible to see that not enough went on for them to change their behavior in response to it. ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2020, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/77 "2020-01-09T17:22:32Z")
The irony is, both Asimov and Ellison considered themselves feminists. During the second half of the 20th Century, the intelligentsia worried far more about sexual repression, than sexual harassment. People spent decades trying to liberate women from Victorian repression and middle-class prudery, only to learn that women did not want to be liberated in quite the same manner that men wanted to liberate them. A good lesson for wannabe rebels everywhere. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2020, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/78 "2020-01-09T17:58:30Z")
They considered themselves _feminists_\*\*, so bloody what? So did Weinstein. Doesn’t excuse what they did one effing iota. ---
**Author:** ![iguanas.com](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c4cdca/32.png) [@iguanas.com](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iguanas.com)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2020, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/79 "2020-01-10T02:31:28Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > Yes we do actually - Asimov kept on with the grabby hands long after the events in that quote took place. While it’s not possible to know exactly what’s going on inside of someone else’s mind, it’s certainly possible to see that not enough went on for them to change their behavior in response to it. I have to figure, then, that as often happens, he knew he acted wrongly but continued to at that way. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2020, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094/80 "2020-01-10T02:37:48Z")
When Asimov felt guilty about something, this is what he wrote: " There was a laboratory and we dissected earthworms, frogs, dogfish, and cats. I disliked it intensely but I grew inured to it. The trouble was that we had to find a stray cat and kill it by dumping it in an ashcan which we filled with chloroform. Like a fool, I did it. After all, I was only following the orders of my superior, like any Nazi functionary in the death camps. But I never recovered. That killed cat lives with me, and to this day, over half a century later, when I think of it, I double up in misery." The quote about who he felt after his experience with Bester doesn’t show the same level of guilt. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/asimov-the-serial-harasser/846094.md?page=5)