Sun > Status Update

Ariadna wrote: "It's all the way at the end of her statement over here. (It took me a while to find it too. No idea why.) ..."

Ahhh, thank you :) I knew I read it somewhere.

Ariadna wrote: "ETA: I edited my comment (no. 2086) to clarify that Berkley/Intermix had 2 more books for The Barons planned.he..."

Did you see my edit about the foreign publishers? They are important, too, I think.

ETA: I recognise that this is a safe space for victims/survivors of the SH debacle and that therefore my comments/views here are unnecessary. I have decided to remove them rather than cause further harm, distress, pain or offence which was never my intention. I am sorry I did not fully appreciate the purpose of this thread before commenting and my thanks to Optimist and others for pointing this out.

Reflection wrote: "It seems to me that somewhere in this we are forgetting that Santino Hassell (whomsoever that might be) is human too. I do not in the least support or condone past behaviour that has caused harm and hurt, but I would ask does this not seem very kafkaesque? "

Usually before people are ready to consider forgiving an aggregious wrongdoing, they want to see genuine remorse, taking responsibility for what has been done, and making amends to to the victims. None of this has happened. Victims aren't required to forgive even with all of that - but it's usually the bare minimum.

Claudia wrote: "I just want to add something regarding what you wrote there: Of course someone can learn from their mistakes. Of course someone can become a better person from it. Not because they are so talented but because they have reflected on what they have done, they have realized they were wrong (in this case, terribly wrong), they reach those persons who were wronged by their actions and ask for forgiveness. SH has done nothing of the sort. Until then, I've decided I won't give SH the benefit of the doubt. "

I also want to echo what some others have said, not everyone has the capacity. I have close and personal experience with a narcissistic manipulator and likely sociopath. These types lack empathy, and only feel emotions that are directly tied to themselves. They see people only in terms to how those people benefit them and are of use to them. And they can be extremely convincing in making people feel they are genuine.

This may or may not be the case with SH, but I do think it's very valid to suspect SH simply may not have the capacity to change significantly for the better, and to withhold any thoughts SH may change until/unless there is actual and compelling evidence to support it.

Most especially for those that were/are direct victims.

I'll also point out, for anyone that finds it relevant, that there is a difference between forgiveness and restoration of relationship, or protection from consequences.

Alexandra wrote: "I understand that perspective. That is quite different from the belief that everyone must be forced to comply and submit 100% to respond and react exactly the way some others think they should.

I think when we're standing up for something we strongly feel is right it can be very easy to start to become very much like the thing we're standing against, if we're not careful...."

Absolutely. I would never say my way is the only way. People have different priorities and, while I will never understand someone who prizes the physical result (books) of someone's actions higher than the actions themselves, nothing I can say will make them change their minds so I just sigh and move on.

Reflection wrote: "I am not comfortable with book burning or the Internet equivalent.

Again it's personal choice. If you (in the general term) want to burn books, I'll hand you a match, but I would really appreciate it if you (again meant in the broad term don't come after mine). .."

Again, though, there is a vast difference between book burning for the sake of censorship or trying to silence a voice and wanting the output of a manipulative abuser to be removed from the shelves.

Reflection wrote: "Personally I think it's the victims /survivors that should have the loudest voice in this, after all it's they that are living with the consequences. If they want the book banned that seems much more valid than public outcry. ."

Although I most obviously do not speak for any of the victims, I do have to chime in here and state that I have personally seen what the actual victims are demanding happens and it is exactly that Santino Hassell and whoever is behind that persona stops profiting completely from the abuse he reaped all over the course of 15 odd years. So yes, they want the books banned. The new ones pulled from publishing and the old ones gone. You can very easily find their comments on the topic on Twitter.

Aside from that, as a reader, I'm also on the camp that wants that. It is inconceivable to me that Santino Hassell is still getting money from stories that are basically the result of emotional exploitation.

Cadiva wrote: "Absolutely. I would never say my way is the only way. People have different priorities and, while I will never understand someone who prizes the result of someone's actions higher than the actions themselves, nothing I can say will make them change their minds so I just sigh and move on. "

That I get. Sometimes it's more a facepalm for me than just a sigh. LOL.

Mónica wrote: "Aside from that, as a reader, I'm also on the camp that wants that. It is inconceivable to me that Santino Hassell is still getting money from stories that are basically the result of emotional exploitation. ..."

Bolding Mine - This ^^ in a nutshell.

Cadiva wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "I understand that perspective. That is quite different from the belief that everyone must be forced to comply and submit 100% to respond and react exactly the way some others thin..."

+1

Ariadna wrote: "Elena wrote: "JuniperGreen ~✰grumpy old woman in training✰~ wrote: "And from what I read, I strongly suspect a type of personality that's not likely to change their behaviour. Manipulative personal..."

Thank you, Ariadna!
I guess it's not a surprise that the only publisher not answering is the one publishing SH's m/f series.

Josy wrote: "Ariadna wrote: "- Berkley (Intermix) has gone on the record that they won't publish the rest of The Barons novels (there were 2 planned);.."

As I understand, it's still unclear if they are going t..."

I'll tweet today to the international publishers you guys' are mentioning.

@Ari, yes. Berkley/Intermix have stated the next books planned for The Barons series have been pulled, but the first ones are still for sale and they have said nothing in regards to those.

St. Martins Press/Macmillan Publishers have not given any statement of any kind as far as I am aware. The forewords about the deal can still be found around. Although I was also able to find that deal was contracted through Handspun Literary Agency. I don't know if that makes any difference now that Santino Hassell's agent has dropped them.


https://www.rtbookreviews.com/blog/13...

(https://www.publishersmarketplace.com...)

RITA nominee Santino Hassell's SINGLE DADS CLUB contemporary romance trilogy, his first m/f romance series featuring three single dads and the women who bring them to their knees, to Holly Ingraham at St. Martin's, by Courtney Miller-Callihan at Handspun Literary (world). Posted: September 19, 2017 at 10:13 p.m.

Cadiva wrote: "Again, though, there is a vast difference between book burning for the sake of censorship or trying to silence a voice and wanting the output of a manipulative abuser to be removed from the shelves."

Ok, I'm gonna preface this first by saying I think consumers have the right to ask, complain, etc., to publishers and retailers about anything they want.

But personally I think the responsible way for consumers to address a situation where they don't want a book sold is on the demand side, not the supply side. Personally I really don't see much difference between book banning/burning and attempts to get books removed from being sold. My opinion. Because that oversteps your choice and your rights, and starts to infringe upon the rights of others.

Motives and reasoning may be pure. But everyone everywhere who doesn't want a book sold - or read, or available in a library - thinks their motives are good.

A consumer has the right to not buy a book. For whatever reason. They also have the right to speak out about why they won't buy the book, and explain why they don't think others should either.

Enough consumers agree and the book doesn't sell well. Books that don't sell well are likely to not continue to be sold, or at the very least publishers are less likely to publish additional books by that author. Particularly when they're aware the issue is with the author, and not the type of book.

Publishers want to publish books that sell to a reasonable degree, and they make decisions on what to publish based on what they feel will sell, and what is not selling.

Whatever we may think of others still purchasing these books, even when/if they are aware, that doesn't change the fact that they have the right to do so, and personally I think trying to get the books pulled so that people who want to buy them cannot is a very, very problematic precedent.

Because we're saying other people have the right to decide for us what books we can and cannot buy, what books we can and cannot read. And if we have the right to do this to this book, then others have the exact same right to do it for any book they feel shouldn't be sold, for whatever reason.

And I think that is why some of us readers find the attempts to get books pulled so that others cannot buy and read them is a very, very uncomfortable concept.

That's my opinion. But, everyone is free to do as they feel is best and right. And I 100% understand the reasons why, most especially when it comes to those that where using the stories of others without permission. I was very happy when Riptide pulled the books they did. So, I really and truly do understand where people are coming from in this case.

The people who do unquestionably have the right to have books pulled are those whose stories were taken and used without permission. But that would likely require a lawsuit, which would be understandably problematic for them for various reasons. If it'd been me I sure wouldn't want to go through the additional pain and upset and embarrassment a lawsuit would cause. So, I get that too.

ETA: I recognise that this is a safe space for victims/survivors of the SH debacle and that therefore my comments/views here are unnecessary. I have decided to remove them rather than cause further harm, distress, pain or offence which was never my intention. I am sorry I did not fully appreciate the purpose of this thread before commenting and my thanks to Optimist and others for pointing this out.

Josy wrote: "Ariadna wrote: "ETA: I edited my comment (no. 2086) to clarify that Berkley/Intermix had 2 more books for The Barons planned.he..."

Did you see my edit about the foreign publishers? They are impor..."

I saw that and I agree.

Mónica wrote: "Reflection wrote: "Personally I think it's the victims /survivors that should have the loudest voice in this, after all it's they that are living with the consequences. If they want the book banned..."

+1

Alexandra wrote: "Cadiva wrote: "Again, though, there is a vast difference between book burning for the sake of censorship or trying to silence a voice and wanting the output of a manipulative abuser to be removed f..."

I agree in general, Alexandra.
In this case, though, my concern is that the publisher should be aware of the fact that there are allegations of this author using personal confidences and intimate details, given in what was considered a safe space, in their books, without the explicit permission or even knowledge of the people involved. Also that an author they're planning to publish has a documented history of harassing readers.
They can look into the matter and decide what to do next, but I still want to be sure they know about all this.
If they decide to publish anyway, I really hope the series doesn't sell well because word about SH has spread enough and readers are making the decision to not support this author, but that's just my hope. I don't think the publisher has an obligation to do anything.
Of course, which conclusion I draw from the publisher's decision is another matter, but that's my prerogative as a customer.

Alexandra wrote: "Cadiva wrote: "Again, though, there is a vast difference between book burning for the sake of censorship or trying to silence a voice and wanting the output of a manipulative abuser to be removed f..."

You do have a point, that I actually understand.

But, as a reader and as someone who has spent the past month immerse in the story of what Santino Hassell did and more than a year shouting to the void about how bad-wrong their professional stance was, I am and will continue to be aggravated that any sort of profit is still being made from books that are a direct result (and in some cases a direct steal) of abuse and exploit.

That a company is still giving Santino Hassell a platform to reap the rewards of that deed and that capitalisation of that abuse is still possible is something that I find to be inconceivable.

Much like others said before, I can't do anything about those that disagree with me, that is very much their prerogative, but I do hope that space that was set up by victims to tell their stories remains one that is safe for them. And I cannot imagine any of the people that have been brave enough to speak up here and on Twitter are keen to read about how some people still think the cool books are more important than their uncool stories.

Elena wrote: "Ariadna wrote: "Elena wrote: "JuniperGreen ~✰grumpy old woman in training✰~ wrote: "And from what I read, I strongly suspect a type of personality that's not likely to change their behaviour. Manip..."

Yeah, it's pretty gross. It could be that St. Martin's Press is working on cancelling the contract. Or that they're working with Marvin and Alicia on rebranding the SH persona. We just don't know. :-/

Ariadna wrote: "Or that they're working with Marvin and Alicia on rebranding the SH persona. "

:/ yeap

Elena wrote: "I agree in general, Alexandra.
In this case, though, my concern is that the publisher should be aware of the fact that there are allegations of this author using personal confidences and intimate details, given in what was considered a safe space, in their books, without the explicit permission or even knowledge of the people involved. Also that an author they're planning to publish has a documented history of harassing readers.
They can look into the matter and decide what to do next, but I still want to be sure they know about all this."

Absolutely! There is nothing at all wrong with people bringing these things to the publishers' attention, and they have every right to do so.

Nothing even wrong with feeling glad when those publishers decided to pull books from publication and/or not publish future books. :D

Mónica wrote: "But, as a reader and as someone who has spent the past month immerse in the story of what Santino Hassell did and more than a year shouting to the void about how bad-wrong their professional stance was, I am and will continue to be aggravated that any sort of profit is still being made from books that are a direct result (and in some cases a direct steal) of abuse and exploit."

I understand your position. This particular case is a very messy situation, and has grey areas.

Just wanted to point out the reasons why some readers find attempts to get books pulled from publication a bit uncomfortable.

" I am and will continue to be aggravated that any sort of profit is still being made from books that are a direct result (and in some cases a direct steal) of abuse and exploit."

I'm right there with you on that. In a perfect world the way to address that is with a lawsuit by those whose stories were appropriated. But it's completely understandable, for obvious reasons, the victims likely won't want to do that. I'd sure LOVE to see it, but I sure wouldn't want to go through that if I were in their shoes.

"And I cannot imagine any of the people that have been brave enough to speak up here and on Twitter are keen to read about how some people still think the cool books are more important than their uncool stories."

I sure don't think that, and I would not say that. I'm not one that can "separate the art from the artist" when it comes to things that are egregious like this. I sure wouldn't want my money going to this person. Period.

ETA: I recognise that this is a safe space for victims/survivors of the SH debacle and that therefore my comments/views here are unnecessary. I have decided to remove them rather than cause further harm, distress, pain or offence which was never my intention. I am sorry I did not fully appreciate the purpose of this thread before commenting and my thanks to Optimist and others for pointing this out.

Alexandra wrote: "But personally I think the responsible way for consumers to address a situation where they don't want a book sold is on the demand side, not the supply side.

Personally I really don't see much difference between book banning/burning and attempts to get books removed from being sold. My opinion.

Because that oversteps your choice and your rights, and starts to infringe upon the rights of others..."

We'll agree to disagree on this one I think.

Removing a book that's been published through deceit is, in my view anyway, completely different than wanting to censor someone's choices of reading material I don't like.

Reflection wrote: "Separating the art from the artist is not in any way accepting what they have done. "

Perhaps not. However if in doing so money changes hands from you to them, then you support what they do. If you do things like post a positive review, hit "like" on a positive review, etc., then you're helping to promote the "art" in ways that may further support what they do.

A book is not simply "art". It is a consumer product. And anything done to support that consumer product, benefits the seller of that product. And that supports and encourages them in what they do.

When it comes to selling a retail product the producer is directly linked to that product, because any sale and/or support of that product benefits and supports the seller.

Reflection wrote: "They are human too. That must count for something."

I get you are saying here, but I fundamentally disagree with the way you are framing it to be.

Santino Hassell is an entity that's not real. It's a brand. And their publishers are a company.

By wanting books pulled from publishing nobody is "going after" (and I use those words for a lack of another one better suited) an individual.

It is like saying that there are people behind say Amazon and that when I object against their policies and actions I'm not thinking of Jeff Bezoz's real human feelings. And that's not the case. Santino Hassell may be a brand in a much smaller scale than the example I used. But is still one. An unethical, spurious, fraudulent, harassing and abusing one (one that I add, took advantage of not presenting itself as a brand, but as a person that then went on to manipulate, exploit and gaslight people that were actually being their real human selves).

Exactly the fact that people saw and liked and even cared for Santino Hassell as a human being is what allowed them to be the bisexual fuckboy, immigrant, broke single parent of two, unloved by his family, past abuse survivor, cancer patient, recovering addict and whothefuck knows what else. When the fact is Santino Hassell is not a person. It's a persona that used the power of seemingly being a human being to abuse.

(edit to add last comments)

Alexandra wrote: "Perhaps not. However if in doing so money changes hands from you to them, then you support what they do. If you do things like post a positive review, hit "like" on a positive review, etc., then you're helping to promote the "art" in ways that may further support what they do.

A book is not simply "art". It is a consumer product. And anything done to support that consumer product, benefits the seller of that product. And that supports and encourages them in what they do.

When it comes to selling a retail product the producer is directly linked to that product, because any sale and/or support of that product benefits and supports the seller. ..."

In this we can completely agree though :)

Cadiva wrote: "Removing a book that's been published through deceit is, in my view anyway, completely different than wanting to censor someone's choices of reading material I don't like. "

I think perhaps you misunderstood, at least perhaps a little. I don't see anything wrong with a book being pulled from publication that was published through deceit, or in which the fraud of appropriating the stories of others was perpetrated.

I was not speaking about that at all, I was speaking to the tactics used to achieve that end, not the desired end itself.

Everyone who attempts to censor books believes their motives are good and right. That yours may actually be, and others may actually not be, doesn't change the fact that everyone has the same rights as everyone else.

Cadiva wrote: "Reflection wrote: "Surely we are better than this? Is prescribing and prohibiting the choice of what we read and whom we read because we don't approve of an author's /authors' behaviour or belief, ..."

I agree wholeheartedly!

JuniperGreen ~✰grumpy old woman in training✰~ wrote: "Does anyone know if there are legal aspects involved if SH used other peoples experiences without their consent?
eta: sorry, just now read Alexandras' comment above. "

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me they absolutely would have a valid case for a lawsuit. The problem with that is the trauma and embarrassment it would no doubt cause for a victim to put themselves through that, and if they felt it was worth it to them. If they don't, I can completely understand.

Reflection wrote: "Ariadna wrote: "Their behaviour was awful, but that's not the only thing that defines them. They love, and hate and rage and hurt and laugh and cry just like everybody else. They are human too. That must count for something."

In this case, their enduring abusive behavior is what has defined them. Given how fake their 3 (!) statements have been (as some have pointed out, some parts of the March 11th one were lifted from one of their own books), I am unable to feel any sympathy for them.

Instead, I focus my compassion on the victims (both those who have spoken up and have remained silent.)

Alexandra wrote: "Personally I really don't see much difference between book banning/burning and attempts to get books removed from being sold. "

No one can keep the books from being sold. SH can self publish. All anyone can do is try to convince the publishers not to be involved.

Tez wrote: "Love Tiffany Reisz's work, but don't want to get the full EXPOSED anthology? Good news, everyone! "The Watermark" (Tiffany's contribution) will also be available in an expanded edition as a standal..."

they already dropped SH from the anthology so there's so reason to wait, and I think the watermark was only a small chapter from picture perfect cowboy. or am I wrong?

Alexandra wrote: "I think perhaps you misunderstood, at least perhaps a little. I don't see anything wrong with a book being pulled from publication that was published through deceit, or in which the fraud of appropriating the stories of others was perpetrated...."

What tactics though? People are letting the publishers know, are putting the information out in the public domain so people are aware of the situation.

They're not forcing people not to purchase the books or going and removing them off the shelves in physical book stores that I'm aware of any way.

Charming wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "All anyone can do is try to convince the publishers not to be involved. "

People certainly have that right. Personally I simply feel it better for consumers to focus on the demand side, rather than the supply side. Beyond ensuring publishers are aware of the particulars.

Everyone has the same right to try to stop books from being published, and try to get them from being published. I've seen it happen to a variety of books for a variety of reasons.

I think it's understandable that some readers find that idea a bit uncomfortable. If others do not, that's certainly up to them.

Alexandra wrote: "Personally I simply feel it better for consumers to focus on the demand side, rather than the supply side. Beyond ensuring publishers are aware of the particulars...."

Sorry if I have to ask. It's a genuine question and I feel kinda stupid for asking.
We are doing exactly that, aren't we? We are letting the publishers know so that they can make their own decisions. And if they still decide to publish, we won't buy them. So that is the demand side you're speaking of, right?

Cadiva wrote: "What tactics though? People are letting the publishers know,"

Yup, as they have the right to do, as I said in my post, I think consumers have the right to ask, complain, etc., to publishers and retailers about anything they want.

I see some doing more than simply letting publishers know, and I can understand why some readers find that a bit uncomfortable. Everyone has that same right, and I've seen books pulled because people wanted certain people silenced. I've seen books pulled that had content that I understood why others found it reprehensible and offensive. I still understand why it's concerning to have people campaigning to get books they don't like pulled or blocked from publication. Because others have the exact same right to do it as everyone else.

As I said, the end result of a book not being published can be worked from the supply side, or from the demand side.

"are putting the information out in the public domain so people are aware of the situation. "

This I actually agree with, as I said. I stated that, IMO, it was better for consumers to focus on the supply side, rather than the demand side.

The end result of a book no longer being published can be the same, however, IMO, I think the best tactic to achieve this result is from the demand side - consumers not purchasing the book, speaking out about why they aren't purchasing the book and explaining why they feel others shouldn't purchase the book, etc. Rather than the supply side of targeting publishers to insist and demand they pull the book from publication.

All while affirming that people do have the right to contact publishers if they want, and advise them or complain, or insist, whatever they want.

That's what I meant by tactics. End result - same.

Josy wrote: "Sorry if I have to ask. It's a genuine question and I feel kinda stupid for asking.
We are doing exactly that, aren't we? We are letting the publishers know so that they can make their own decisions."

The publishers are the supply side. They supply the product. So contacting the publishers and asking them to pull books from publication, and/or cancel publication (as I've seen some saying), is working on the supply side.

Completely within people's right to do. I simply understand why this makes some readers a bit uncomfortable.

"And if they still decide to publish, we won't buy them. So that is the demand side you're speaking of, right? "

The demand side yes, is consumers buying the product. So, effecting sales, and the fate of a published book, and potentially decisions to cancel publication of books not yet published, can be worked from the demand side. By not purchasing books, getting the word out to other consumers, advising others why they don't think they should buy the book either, etc., can tank sales. And publishers don't want to publish books by authors that aren't selling. This is really where readers have the most power and influence.

I really want to avoid a debate about this (not directed at you, just a general comment), I really just wanted to explain why some readers do find the idea of trying to pull books from publication a bit uncomfortable, cuz for many readers it hits a lot of nerves about things we tend to be sensitive about regarding books and access and free speech.

It doesn't mean I don't think people have a right to contact publishers, they DO, or that I don't understand and sympathize about why they want publishers to pull these particularly books, I DO. And I'm not saying really people shouldn't if they want. I simply understand why others find the notion a bit troublesome.

Thanks, Alexandra! I think I get it now :) And no, I wouldn't want to derail this thread either. I just wanted to know if I understood what you were saying.

Josy wrote: "Thanks, Alexandra! I think I get it now :) And no, I wouldn't want to derail this thread either. I just wanted to know if I understood what you were saying."

Appreciate it :D Everyone, I do understand there are differing views on this and I respect that. This is a very horrible situation, and I'm cool with everyone doing what they feel is best and right. I'll be happy too when this person, and their books, are in some deep, dark, hole, no one cares about.

HOOPLA....I get a lot of my reading through them. I was searching for a read last night which has a 'People who borrowed this also borrowed'...it included 3 of SH's books. I did another search for their name and found 14 Ebook/Audio under that name. I don't know if this is just for the library card that I have, or if this is for Hoopla site wide.

https://www.hoopladigital.com/artist/1626613675

Has anyone here connected with Hoopla with what's been going on? I wish that I was as tech savvy as some of you here, but no. :(

===================

Ariadna wrote: "Yeah, it's pretty gross. It could be that St. Martin's Press is working on cancelling the contract. Or that they're working with Marvin and Alicia on rebranding the SH persona. We just don't know. :-/"

Yup. I do believe this is currently replacing their (Marvin and Alicia) currently sinking ship.

ME just got word that it's legally okay to pull the books!
https://twitter.com/MeganErickson_/st...

She has no control over foreign rights but her agent is in contact with foreign publishers.
https://twitter.com/MeganErickson_/st...

I finally got a generic reply back from Barnes and Noble.

My personal opinion is that the bookseller at least needs to be notified. What they do with that information is another matter.

As a buyer, I think Amazon is doing the right thing here. The books are still for sale, but they are offering refunds at the same time.

I bought a couple of SH's books from B&N and I would love to have an option of getting some form of compensation.

Alexandra wrote: "JuniperGreen ~✰grumpy old woman in training✰~ wrote: "Does anyone know if there are legal aspects involved if SH used other peoples experiences without their consent?
eta: sorry, just now read Alex..."

From Writer's Digest. I didn't see this exact scenario, but some similar.
Writer's Digest

Ariadna wrote: "ETA: If anyone knows of any other blogs that have pulled their SH posts, please signal boost. :)..."

Just saw these two by chance.

Book Reviews & More by Kathy
https://www.bookreviewsandmorebykathy...

Fiction Vixen
http://fictionvixen.com/fiction-vixen...

Reflection wrote: ""Santino Hassell" may be a pen name, but the author/authors is/are real human beings with real lives too.

Their behaviour was awful, but that's not the only thing that defines them. They love, and hate and rage and hurt and laugh and cry just like everybody else. They are human too. That must count for something."

Could you stop, please?

The victims of this catfish are real too. Their pain is real. They're human too. Their gaslighting & silence was real. Noah, Jenn, Susan, Alissa & countless others are real. Their exploitation was real. The longstanding aftereffects are real too. There are probably others who are too afraid to come forward & who's to say that some haven't actually committed suicide due to their toxic relationship with Santino Hassell.

It's clear you don't care about them or their pain since by your own admission approximately 48 hrs into supposedly edifying yourself with the substantial evidence in support of gaslighting, fraudulent behavior & abuse the catfish has inflicted you decided that you'd align yourself with her & advocate on her behalf:




When is enough, enough, you ask? You might want to save that question for a time when people aren't still trying to heal. Would you go knocking on Paz Vega's door asking her to try to rustle up some compassion for Weinstein? How about the family of Sharon Tate? Because I do think the correlation is relevant. All of them have systematically abused their power over others, silenced them & never took responsibility for their actions.

The catfish is still catfishing, because she is a pathological liar & sociopath. Is she capable of redemption? Statistics don't support that. Behaviors of a sociopath:

Aggressive or violent behavior: repeatedly talked about "ending" those that were trying to "dox" her; plus:

Lack of remorse about harming others: see any fauxpology of your choosing
Manipulating others with wit or charm: https://twitter.com/sweetsakuradoll/s...
Repeatedly violating the rights of others: https://twitter.com/JennLA82/status/9...
Child abuse or neglect: MADE UP CHILDREN! Close enough in my book
Disregard for right and wrong: see all receipts above
Persistent lying or deceit: said she had liver cancer, took money & gifts for this & other fake or trumped up maladies
Abusive or poor relationships: see all receipts above
Impulsive behavior: catfishing for 15+ years

I second whomever said that the catfish hasn't asked for forgiveness, hasn't apologized, hasn't admitted to any wrongdoing & it's highly probable she never will. What she has done is employ distraction tactics, continue to live & die by the catfishing & rely on the loyalty of #churchofhassell. Until such time as actual forgiveness is asked for & responsibility is taken then none can be granted. These people have been repeatedly taken advantage of, exploited & some had to endure litigation.

So, you do what you need to do. The fact that you're here ardently advocating on her behalf, talking about her "humanity" makes me seriously question whether or not you're here at her behest. So, I respectfully request that you try to muster up a modicum of respect for the people whose lives have been forever changed by this & take your devotion to Patreon, please.

Optimist ♰King's Wench♰ & MANTIES Champion wrote: "Reflection wrote: ""Santino Hassell" may be a pen name, but the author/authors is/are real human beings with real lives too.

Their behaviour was awful, but that's not the only thing that defines them. They love, and hate and rage and hurt and laugh and cry just like everybody else. They are human too. That must count for something."

Could you stop, please?

The victims of this catfish are real too. Their pain is real. They're human too. Their gaslighting & silence was real. Noah, Jenn, Susan, Alissa & countless others are real. Their exploitation was real. The longstanding aftereffects are real too. There are probably others who are too afraid to come forward & who's to say that some haven't actually committed suicide due to their toxic relationship with Santino Hassell...."


DAMN! What I wouldn't give for a "LIKE" button right about now.

D wrote: "Optimist ♰King's Wench♰ & MANTIES Champion wrote: "Reflection wrote: ""Santino Hassell" may be a pen name, but the author/authors is/are real human beings with real lives too.

Their behaviour was ..."

^^^^^What D said!!!

D wrote: "DAMN! What I wouldn't give for a "LIKE" button right about now...."

And I just thought exactly the same!

Pushes own “LIKE” button!!!