Lena Dunham Autobiography, Allegations of Abusing Sister.

seamus

RDM_83 again wrote: »

What she did was mastrobate while in close physical contact with a child and derived pleasure from it.

You see now you're embellishing what was written in order to make the situation appear like some narrative that wasn't stated but that you would like to believe.

I think it's fair to say that people derive pleasure from masturbation. And some people derive additional pleasure from danger ****.

Horrifically inappropriate, of course. But the fact that a child was present beside her may be immaterial.

--LOS--

Amazingfun wrote: »

Lena Dunham is simply disgusting. I hope she fades from view after this toddler-abusing episode but I guess that's unlikely....

That's a pretty weak argument, she's disgusting........just coz.

If you can depersonalise it for a second and look at what happened, is that disgusting? That behaviour is knowingly inappropriate for an adult, not for a child. I'm struggling to understand how people can hold a child accountable for something that they lack the capacity to understand.

One eyed Jack

--LOS-- wrote: »

That's a pretty weak argument, she's disgusting........just coz.

If you can depersonalise it for a second and look at what happened, is that disgusting? That behaviour is knowingly inappropriate for an adult, not for a child. I'm struggling to understand how people can hold a child accountable for something that they lack the capacity to understand.

I don't think it's so much that most people hold her accountable for her behaviour as a child, but more that they hold her accountable for her behaviour as an adult - the absolute abandonment of tact really. The fact that she just seems to fail to see anything from anyone else's point of view, it just seems like she is still quite immature, and I'm allowing for her 'special bubble' status as a media celebrity who had an unconventional childhood that seems to influence her perspective, but honestly like, if she claims to value brutal honesty, should she really be surprised when other people are just as brutally honest with her, from their perspective?

Her reaction seems to indicate that she thinks it's unacceptable for anyone but her to be brutally honest. Michael Jackson was brutally honest when he was being interviewed by Martin Bashir, and look how that turned out for him! Kelly Brook was accused of being some violent thug when she wrote in her book about her having punched Jason Statham. Her reaction - she didn't at all acknowledge how other people might judge her for her behaviour, made no attempt to understand the consequences of her admission, only dug a deeper hole for herself with her facepalm inducing indignance that had her come out with the classless - "I'll be more careful in choosing my boyfriends in future".

One really has to wonder at celebrities buying into their own hype so much that they think they are infallible, and then they wonder when they attract criticism for their lack of self-awareness and tact - there are just some things you keep to yourself. It's that simple really.

Wibbs

I think this has blown up in the US because there really does seem to be an increasingly male hostile bias going on in some media quarters over there. So it's expected she'll get an easier ride because she's a woman/was a girl, when a quick google will show boys are in danger of being treated differently. Six year old boy suspended for "sexual harrassment. From the same media outlet this bloggista reckoned the school was dead right to do so. Her daftness is well worth a read, for a giggle at the very least. It would be interesting to see if she changes her tune for Dunham. I suspect not as she tends to be poster woman for this type.

Basically more extreme nonsense from the stupid US "gender war". The rest of us(and ordinary Americans with it) would see this kinda thing in most cases as childish curiosity, pre sexual stuff and hardly comparable to the kind of abuse adults or even adolescents might get up to.

Dunham wrote:

"anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.”

So in her own words she compares herself to a sexual predator, then goes apeshít when others might agree? Then again she does come across as just a tad neurotic, narcissistic and attention seeking, the therapy selfie and self entitled generation, so one might expect that kinda disconnect would be par for the course. What's more worrying for me than this particular snippet is that this kinda gobshíte is seen as a role model for so many. Jesus.

Carlos Orange

seamus wrote: »

You see now you're embellishing what was written in order to make the situation appear like some narrative that wasn't stated but that you would like to believe.

Horrifically inappropriate, of course. But the fact that a child was present beside her may be immaterial.

I think people are putting together a narrative based on the 3 sections of the book that seem prominently quoted. Not sure I really buy into it but it is based on combining the events , not any one piece on its own.

It seems strange to just dismiss stuff as immaterial since presumably it is in the autobiography for a reason. It also seems strange that her sisters response explicitly refers to the response as being related to policing sexuality when people are claiming there is nothing sexual happening.

--LOS--

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think it's so much that most people hold her accountable for her behaviour as a child, but more that they hold her accountable for her behaviour as an adult - the absolute abandonment of tact really. The fact that she just seems to fail to see anything from anyone else's point of view, it just seems like she is still quite immature, and I'm allowing for her 'special bubble' status as a media celebrity who had an unconventional childhood that seems to influence her perspective, but honestly like, if she claims to value brutal honesty, should she really be surprised when other people are just as brutally honest with her, from their perspective?

Her reaction seems to indicate that she thinks it's unacceptable for anyone but her to be brutally honest. Michael Jackson was brutally honest when he was being interviewed by Martin Bashir, and look how that turned out for him! Kelly Brook was accused of being some violent thug when she wrote in her book about her having punched Jason Statham. Her reaction - she didn't at all acknowledge how other people might judge her for her behaviour, made no attempt to understand the consequences of her admission, only dug a deeper hole for herself with her facepalm inducing indignance that had her come out with the classless - "I'll be more careful in choosing my boyfriends in future".

One really has to wonder at celebrities buying into their own hype so much that they think they are infallible, and then they wonder when they attract criticism for their lack of self-awareness and tact - there are just some things you keep to yourself. It's that simple really.

But why should she be held accountable as an adult for something she did as a child? You went on a whole other tangent there bringing up Michael Jackson and Kelly Brook, I don't see how that's relevant at all, they were adults.

I agree she lives in a bubble, the result of living such a privileged life, but I don't think she's so stupid that she's unaware of how she's perceived. She is admittedly fallible and uses her openness to her advantage, it has brought her a lot of success, of course she's aware of that. I get that speaking about things of a sexual nature in the context of children makes people uncomfortable, hence the reaction. She's obviously comfortable with it though and so is her sister judging by her online response so why attribute so much meaning to something where it doesn't exist. She shared some childhood anecdotes, it's as simple as that. Why should she keep quiet about it, you realise that only feeds shame which could be really destructive to someone later in life. I'm sure she's aware those were weird events, why else think to write about it. I look back on some things I did as a child and think jeezuz that was a bit fcuked up, but labelling it sick/disgusting/abuse is nonsensical when there's no intent or awareness there.

CaptainInsano

--LOS-- wrote: »

But why should she be held accountable as an adult for something she did as a child?.

I know this whole thing isn't as severe as other examples but there's cases where children have committed unspeakable acts and are paying the price in some form as adults. Children are capable of making reasoned decisions and I'm not sure merely turning 18 should suddenly erase someone's past in all cases.
Regarding this story, I'd just be completely mortified and embarrassed if I was her sister. It'd be interesting to hear her sister's views.

Areyouwell

No doubt her little bit of self-promotion has probably significantly multiplied her book sales.

tritium

--LOS-- wrote: »

But why should she be held accountable as an adult for something she did as a child? You went on a whole other tangent there bringing up Michael Jackson and Kelly Brook, I don't see how that's relevant at all, they were adults.

I agree she lives in a bubble, the result of living such a privileged life, but I don't think she's so stupid that she's unaware of how she's perceived. She is admittedly fallible and uses her openness to her advantage, it has brought her a lot of success, of course she's aware of that. I get that speaking about things of a sexual nature in the context of children makes people uncomfortable, hence the reaction. She's obviously comfortable with it though and so is her sister judging by her online response so why attribute so much meaning to something where it doesn't exist. She shared some childhood anecdotes, it's as simple as that. Why should she keep quiet about it, you realise that only feeds shame which could be really destructive to someone later in life. I'm sure she's aware those were weird events, why else think to write about it. I look back on some things I did as a child and think jeezuz that was a bit fcuked up, but labelling it sick/disgusting/abuse is nonsensical when there's no intent or awareness there.

I'm curious here though (and I confess I don't have a particular opinion on Lena here), where would you draw the line, both in terms of age and severity. On the one hand you have this young girl doing various things of various degrees of inappropriatness, between the ages of 7 and 17. Quite a few posters are saying she gets a pass as she was a child etc. Quite a few of this same posters were brandishing pitchforks in the thread on three 16 year olds being convicted of sexual assault- even deciding that they knew better than the law what crime had actually been committed (gang rape was the favoured refrain).

Now I'm not saying these are equivalent. They are however points on a continuum, for crimes involving children at various stages if development. So, in the interests of consistency, where do you draw the line. Does a 10 year old get a pass on a horrible crime that a 13 old doesn't? Do we apply some age above which there's no discretion? What is that age? Because as Wibbs examples have pointed out we're not being very consistent right now!

_Whimsical_

CaptainInsano wrote: »

I know this whole thing isn't as severe as other examples but there's cases where children have committed unspeakable acts and are paying the price in some form as adults. Children are capable of making reasoned decisions and I'm not sure merely turning 18 should suddenly erase someone's past in all cases.
Regarding this story, I'd just be completely mortified and embarrassed if I was her sister. It'd be interesting to hear her sister's views.

I would feel this was horrific to reveal if her sister was uncomfortable about it. Throughout the book her love of her sister was clear, her desire to protect her and mother her, her desire to impress her and include her in her fun of college parties. I presume her sister consented to including these stories in the book because she too looked back on the experience and thought of it as childish weirdness and did not feel violated or abused and understood the intent behind it at the time.

You have to understand that they aren't a normal family too. Lena has bared her less than holywood body without any qualms, her mum was an artist who had an art project at home that revolved around photos of her naked and photos of her vagina. As a family they genuinely seem to have much less reservations about nudity, sex or revealing embarrassing incidents than the average person. I would imagine her sister might be the same.

Gatling

tritium wrote: »

I'm curious here though (and I confess I don't have a particular opinion on Lena here), where would you draw the line, both in terms of age and severity. On the one hand you have this young girl doing various things of various degrees of inappropriatness, between the ages of 7 and 17. Quite a few posters are saying she gets a pass as she was a child etc. Quite a few of this same posters were brandishing pitchforks in the thread on three 16 year olds being convicted of sexual assault- even deciding that they knew better than the law what crime had actually been committed (gang rape was the favoured refrain).

3 16 year olds lads held a girl down against her will and had sex with her that is rape been all 3 did it gang rape it wasnt a party now was it ,

Doesn't exactly compare to a young girl masturbating while sharing a bed now does it

tritium

Gatling wrote: »

3 16 year olds lads held a girl down against her will and had sex with her that is rape been all 3 did it gang rape it wasnt a party now was it ,

Doesn't exactly compare to a young girl masturbating while sharing a bed now does it

OK breaathee Gatling. Now read my post. Try it nice andslow to make sure youre getting it. Focus on the last paragraph read that one twice because it's kind of key to soothing your faux outrage. Now read it again just to be really clear in what I actually said.

Better, good. Now perhaps you can answer the point I raised. I'm pretty sure for you the line is somewhere between 16 year old being guilty of defilement and 17 year olds mastrubating in the presence of much younger children (not sure, would it be OK if a 16 year old boy did this in front of his sister-what do you think Gatling?). What you haven't answered is where that line is?

Gatling

tritium wrote: »

OK breaathee Gatling. Now read my post. Try it nice andslow to make sure youre getting it. Focus on the last paragraph read that one twice because it's kind of key to soothing your faux outrage. Now read it again just to be really clear in what I actually said.

Better, good. Now perhaps you can answer the point I raised. I'm pretty sure for you the line is somewhere between 16 year old being guilty of defilement and 17 year olds mastrubating in the presence of much younger children (not sure, would it be OK if a 16 year old boy did this in front of his sister-what do you think Gatling?). What you haven't answered is where that line is?

Your so not worth a ban ,

But I'll try

I get the feeling thousands have done it , masturbating while sharing a room id say is fairly common ,
Now while its risque its not the same as non consentual sex is it now

tritium

Gatling wrote: »

Your so not worth a ban ,

But I'll try

I get the feeling thousands have done it , masturbating while sharing a room id say is fairly common ,
Now while its risque its not the same as non consentual sex is it now

And did I ever say it was? Should be pretty clear if you did reread my post that I didn't. But you still haven't actually answered my question- at what point in terns of age and severity should children be accountable?

One eyed Jack

--LOS-- wrote: »

But why should she be held accountable as an adult for something she did as a child? You went on a whole other tangent there bringing up Michael Jackson and Kelly Brook, I don't see how that's relevant at all, they were adults.

But I said I personally don't hold her accountable for her behaviour as a child, when she was a child. I was using Michael Jackson and Kelly Brook to demonstrate that Lena is not a child NOW, so I am judging her solely on her behaviour as an adult. As an adult, she related some stories from her childhood, and because not everyone shares her sense of humor or understands her need to share everything about herself, she faced a backlash of the same standard as her own brutal honesty. Instead of saying "Ok I could have worded that better", she chooses to play the victim card like everyone is picking on her, poor misunderstood Lena, and she lashes out like a child. She used the media to get where she is, and now she cries foul when the the same media go through her for a shortcut. She set the standard for brutal honesty, she doesn't get to call the shots when the game isn't going her way.

She's a very naive 24 year old girl who clearly hasn't been schooled in PR, so I do feel awful for her that she is being raked over the coals for her naivety. She isn't doing herself any favours by lashing out at the same media and the public who gave her the stage she has now. It's really just facepalm inducing stuff at best, but all she's doing now is what's become commonly known as the Barbara Streisand effect (named after a woman who was around when Lena was only in nappies) - by lashing out, she's drawing even more attention to the incident than there ever was initially.

The only celebrity I've ever known who could actually get away with brutal honesty was Joan Rivers. Why? Because she had the talent as a comedian to insult everyone equally and indiscriminately, and took a woeful amount of flak for it on the chin. She didn't play the whole "Why is everyone picking on me?" card because she KNEW what she said was controversial enough that people would hate her for it.

Lena doesn't seem to be able to understand that concept at all, that if you want to be brutally honest in the public domain where not everyone thinks the same way you do, you're going to get people's backs up, and they're going to be just as brutally honest with you.

I agree she lives in a bubble, the result of living such a privileged life, but I don't think she's so stupid that she's unaware of how she's perceived.

Clearly she is unaware of how she could be perceived when she doesn't understand the difference between a few childhood anecdotes among her circle of friends that understand what she's like, and telling a few childhood anecdotes in a book that's available in the public domain where people who aren't so familiar with her will judge what they're reading by their own standards. What's perfectly normal for her and her circle of friends, may not be perceived as normal behaviour outside her circle of friends and those that know her.

This happens to everyone, I know I've dropped a few clangers that went down like a lead balloon and thought to myself - "That sounded much funnier in my head". I try not to dwell on them though and eventually I move on, and I'm only reminded of them every so often when something happens or when I experience something or whatever. I'm not going to commit those anecdotes to a book, let alone one I hope to be so widely circulated among the general public, far too many of those "You had to be there!" moments that I really don't fancy sharing as I understand I will be judged in a negative light when they're taken out of context (although even now there are times when I drop a clanger and only realise afterwards how it probably wasn't the best idea to be relating that story among people that don't know me that well and weren't there).

She is admittedly fallible and uses her openness to her advantage, it has brought her a lot of success, of course she's aware of that. I get that speaking about things of a sexual nature in the context of children makes people uncomfortable, hence the reaction. She's obviously comfortable with it though and so is her sister judging by her online response so why attribute so much meaning to something where it doesn't exist.

Wait a minute, from the way I understand it, she never meant it to be understood as having any sexual connotations. Now you're telling me she herself attached sexual connotations to her behaviour and that was her motivation for being open and honest about it? Why even tell the story if she didn't attach any meaning to it herself? She's comfortable with it, and her sister is comfortable with it, and it's nobody else's business and that's grand, BUT, when she MAKES it everyone else's business, she's putting herself up there to be judged.

Some people will applaud her, emmm, openness I suppose is the word we're going with here, and some people willl just roll their eyes at her lack of tact, and then some people will be of course be disgusted with her casual attitude and lack of understanding the gravity of her comments.

She shared some childhood anecdotes, it's as simple as that. Why should she keep quiet about it, you realise that only feeds shame which could be really destructive to someone later in life.

If only it was as simple as that. It's not though, because she is a public figure, and she shared something personal with the world, giving the world that right to be brutally honest about her. Keeping quiet about a traumatic event feeds shame. Neither she nor her sister feel they were traumatized, but now realise that not everyone shares their world view. If she didn't want to keep quiet about it - cool, by all means share, but she shouldn't have been so naive as to assume that everyone would understand where she was coming from, as they didn't grow up in her world. She still doesn't seem to grasp this concept adequately enough to save her from herself.

In saying that, she is only 24, so she has plenty of time to put this mess behind her and learn from the experience. I hope for her sake she does now see why brutal honesty isn't always the best policy.

I'm sure she's aware those were weird events, why else think to write about it. I look back on some things I did as a child and think jeezuz that was a bit fcuked up, but labelling it sick/disgusting/abuse is nonsensical when there's no intent or awareness there.

You're not a public figure though, that's the difference between you and Lena. I don't think any one of us here hasn't done something they wouldn't want the world knowing about, because we understand that other people don't share our world view, and to expect that they would, or should, well that's just silly really.

Gatling

tritium wrote: »

And did I ever say it was? Should be pretty clear if you did reread my post that I didn't. But you still haven't actually answered my question- at what point in terns of age and severity should children be accountable?

I'll leave that for a child psychology expert to answer ,
But been most kids are taught right from wrong from an early age ,but this seems to be a simple case of childhood experimental stage ,
And yes you can try some faux outrage but she was 17 when she mastubated beside a sleeping sibling,again risque but its hardly a case of rape

_Whimsical_

tritium wrote: »

I'm curious here though (and I confess I don't have a particular opinion on Lena here), where would you draw the line, both in terms of age and severity. On the one hand you have this young girl doing various things of various degrees of inappropriatness, between the ages of 7 and 17. Quite a few posters are saying she gets a pass as she was a child etc. Quite a few of this same posters were brandishing pitchforks in the thread on three 16 year olds being convicted of sexual assault- even deciding that they knew better than the law what crime had actually been committed (gang rape was the favoured refrain).

Now I'm not saying these are equivalent. They are however points on a continuum, for crimes involving children at various stages if development. So, in the interests of consistency, where do you draw the line. Does a 10 year old get a pass on a horrible crime that a 13 old doesn't? Do we apply some age above which there's no discretion? What is that age? Because as Wibbs examples have pointed out we're not being very consistent right now!

tritium wrote: »

OK breaathee Gatling. Now read my post. Try it nice andslow to make sure youre getting it. Focus on the last paragraph read that one twice because it's kind of key to soothing your faux outrage. Now read it again just to be really clear in what I actually said.

Better, good. Now perhaps you can answer the point I raised. I'm pretty sure for you the line is somewhere between 16 year old being guilty of defilement and 17 year olds mastrubating in the presence of much younger children (not sure, would it be OK if a 16 year old boy did this in front of his sister-what do you think Gatling?). What you haven't answered is where that line is?

In the book she mentions having "explored down there" while her sister was in her bed somewhere between the ages of 10-17. We don't know what age she was. She may have been 11 or 12. Her sister was completely unaware of it happening. There was no intent to harm her sister or use her for gratification. It was completely unrelated to her sisters presence.Her sister might as well have been in the next room.

That you would dream to compare those actions as "points along a contiuum" on a spectrum that has forced gang rape on one side is beyond all comprehension. That you're wondering where the line between the two is is actually frightening.
Would you not consider the intent for harm a line?
The intent to use an unwilling person for personal gratification a line?
The fact that in one case a person just happened to be sleeping and unaware of an act not involving them in any way had transpired and that one incident involved a person being violently forced into violation and physically and emotionally desperately harmed a line ?
You are beyond belief!

If you have ever shared a room with an older sibling,cousin, friend as a kid you have possibly,unknown to you, experienced the same thing as her sister. Do you consider yourself abused?

CaptainInsano

Gatling wrote: »

Doesn't exactly compare to a young girl masturbating while sharing a bed now does it

Yet every post you've made on this thread you've compared both cases .
Are you going to go on every thread on boards where someone is complaining about something and criticise them for complaining about something other than that rape case?

eviltimeban

I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out.

If that's the quote, and that's all it is, then nowhere does she say she did it for pleasure. I took this to mean that she had to put up with her no matter what she was doing - watching TV, reading, masturbating - no matter what she was doing, her sister would be tossing and turning beside her in her bed.

She could've said "eating a sandwich" and the same point would've been made, but I suppose what she's saying is she got so used to her sister being there she just acted like she wasn't there, and she presented the most extreme example of that.

I like Girls as a show but I don't really want to see Lena Dunham's breasts in every episode. OK, maybe they aren't in *every* episode, but for a while it seemed like that. I don't mind nudity at all, in fact I'm all for it, and before someone goes "its only cos she doesn't have a Hollywood body", its nothing really to do with that. Naturally if it was Marnie getting them out every show I probably wouldn't mind as much, I'm a man, what can I say. But after a while it becomes unnecessary, and it wouldn't be the reason I'd watch the show. You've seen 'em once, isn't that enough? Anyway, sorry to digress.

tritium

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

In the book she mentions having "explored down there" while her sister was in her bed somewhere between the ages of 10-17. We don't know what age she was. She may have been 11 or 12. Her sister was completely unaware of it happening. There was no intent to harm her sister or use her for gratification. It was completely unrelated to her sisters presence.Her sister might as well have been in the next room.

That you would dream to compare those actions as "points along a contiuum" on a spectrum that has forced gang rape on one side is beyond all comprehension. That you're wondering where the line between the two is is actually frightening.
Would you not consider the intent for harm a line?
The intent to use an unwilling person for personal gratification a line?
The fact that in one case a person just happened to be sleeping and unaware of an act not involving them in any way had transpired and that one incident involved a person being violently forced into violation and physically and emotionally desperately harmed a line ?
You are beyond belief!

If you have ever shared a room with an older sibling,cousin, friend as a kid you have possibly,unknown to you, experienced the same thing as her sister. Do you consider yourself abused?

We already had the example from another poster of a child of 10 being accused of sexual harassment for kissing a classmate on the hand. There have been several other examples given of children (strangely enough only boys) being accused of sexual crimes for minor childhood incidents. I hate to break it to you but what we have are indeed points on a continuum. It may be a wide continuum but that nonetheless is a fair description. You seem to understand continuum as meaning equivalence, I'm afraid that's not the meaning at all (a analogy would be that the continuum for crime stretches from littering to murder-very different things but both fairly on the continuum. I'm assuming you don't feel outraged by that)

Now if you actually read my post you'll realise that the question I asked is where on that continuum does the " sure they're only a child themselves " argument stop. Maybe you'd care to actually answer that? Interesting though that you seem to think her sister being asleep mitigates things- usually awareness would go to the essence of consent where sexual acts are concerned.

missierex

Scannal wrote: »

Combing your hair isn't the same as playing with her vagina.

Well she was 'grooming her'...

tritium

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Yet every post you've made on this thread you've compared both cases .
Are you going to go on every thread on boards where someone is complaining about something and criticise them for complaining about something other than that rape case?

Just to be clear, and my apologies for a brief trek off topic, the incident in question was sexual assault and defilement of a minor. Not by any means a good thing or indeed in any way trivial, but not the gratuitous gang rape picture that's been transported over here for some grandstanding. There's already been extensive discussion in another thread as to the difference between the information we the public receive and what is put before a court to justify a charge and sentence.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

tritium wrote: »

We already had the example from another poster of a child of 10 being accused of sexual harassment for kissing a classmate on the hand. There have been several other examples given of children (strangely enough only boys) being accused of sexual crimes for minor childhood incidents. I hate to break it to you but what we have are indeed points on a continuum. It may be a wide continuum but that nonetheless is a fair description. You seem to understand continuum as meaning equivalence, I'm afraid that's not the meaning at all.

Now if you actually read my post you'll realise that the question I asked is where on that continuum does the " sure they're only a child themselves " argument stop. Maybe you'd care to actually answer that? Interesting though that you seem to think her sister being asleep mitigates things- usually awareness would go to the essence of consent where sexual acts are concerned.

You seem to be assuming that people defending Dunham are fine with young boys being hauled before authority figures for pecking young girls on the cheek. I think most of us can agree that that sort of stuff is bananas. But if you can apply common sense to the incidents with boys, then why not with Dunham? "The boy got in trouble, and even though I think it was wrong for him to get in trouble, the girl has to get in trouble too for it to be fair"?

And you just cannot compare that defilement case in any meaningful way to this one. You're an intelligent man, surely the differences between a case that led to serious charges being filed and a teenager becoming suicidal and a case where two sisters are having a laugh over people's shock at their childhood anecdotes are apparent to you?

FactCheck

Wibbs wrote: »

I think this has blown up in the US because there really does seem to be an increasingly male hostile bias going on in some media quarters over there. So it's expected she'll get an easier ride because she's a woman/was a girl, when a quick google will show boys are in danger of being treated differently.

It's interesting that Michael Jackson was mentioned on the last page as a story from his childhood came to mind when I was considering whether teenagers danger-**** near their sleeping siblings is abusive:

As members of the increasingly successful Jackson 5, Michael's brothers Jermaine and Jackie found fame advantageous. As they toured the country, they had sex with many female fans. Their guide was their father Joseph, who would often cheat on his wife Katherine with their sons' groupies. The two brothers would bring girls back to a hotel room, where younger siblings Michael and Marlon were instructed to "play sleep". One girl, who had sexual relations with Jermaine, recalled such an experience:

"I jumped into bed with him and he climbed on top of me. As he climaxed, he shuddered so loudly I was afraid he would wake up Michael and Marlon, who were sleeping three feet away in the next bed. Or at least I thought they were sleeping. As I was slipping out of the room, I heard Michael say to Jermaine, 'Nice job. Now, can we please get some sleep?'"

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any suggestion that Jackson's older brothers should be prosecuted for sexual abuse despite there being multiple independent accounts that they forced their little brothers to watch them having sex night after night.

So that makes me maybe approach claims that "oh, if she was a man everybody would be up in arms" with maybe a bit of skepticism. The fact is, male celebrities have done this and nobody cared. And this behaviour (obviously) really disturbed Jackson.

Now, perhaps you could say that in the 70s people were just more relaxed (in good and bad ways) about this stuff. I'd be in pretty broad agreement with seamus on the whole danger-**** scenario. The fact is that throughout human history, and in most of the world right now, outside of the very wealthy 21st century West, the notion of a teenager having a bed to themselves, let alone an entire bedROOM dedicated to **** in privacy, is bizarre. Teenagers share with their siblings and they have to make do the best they can.

I think that in Ireland, being as we are not so many generations removed from enormous families and significant poverty, we maybe have a bit of folk memory that teenagers are horny, selfish feckers and the fact they occasionally **** in close proximity to sleeping family members does not necessarily make them sexual predators.

tritium

Emerie Hissing Liar wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that people defending Dunham are fine with young boys being hauled before authority figures for pecking young girls on the cheek. I think most of us can agree that that sort of stuff is bananas. But if you can apply common sense to the incidents with boys, then why not with Dunham? "The boy got in trouble, and even though I think it was wrong for him to get in trouble, the girl has to get in trouble too for it to be fair"?

And you just cannot compare that defilement case in any meaningful way to this one. You're an intelligent man, surely the differences between a case that led to serious charges being filed and a teenager becoming suicidal and a case where two sisters are having a laugh over people's shock at their childhood anecdotes are apparent to you?

Except if course I didn't compare them did I? I gave them as two points on a continuum and asked where on that continuum do you draw the line and say " not OK even if they're children". You're an intelligent woman so I'd assume the difference there is pretty clear-in fact I was absolutely explicit that they're not equivalent.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

tritium wrote: »

Except if course I didn't compare them did I? I gave them as two points on a continuum and asked where on that continuum do you draw the line and say " not OK even if they're children". You're an intelligent woman so I'd assume the difference there is pretty clear-in fact I was absolutely explicit that they're not equivalent.

They're just very strange points on the continuum to pick. The line falls somewhere between putting your hand down your knickers while your sister is asleep in the room and three friends having penetrative sexual intercourse with someone in a manner that traumatised her. I think we can narrow the range of possibilities a wee bit like.

The question of pre-pubescent boys being held up as examples of rape culture for playing kiss-chase is a much more interesting and useful point of comparison, and for what it's worth I think if Dunham was male she'd be getting a much harder time right now. There are prejudices against males in relation to sexual crimes, but that defilement case is not a good way to illustrate them.

_Whimsical_

tritium wrote: »

We already had the example from another poster of a child of 10 being accused of sexual harassment for kissing a classmate on the hand. There have been several other examples given of children (strangely enough only boys) being accused of sexual crimes for minor childhood incidents. I hate to break it to you but what we have are indeed points on a continuum. It may be a wide continuum but that nonetheless is a fair description. You seem to understand continuum as meaning equivalence, I'm afraid that's not the meaning at all.

Now if you actually read my post you'll realise that the question I asked is where on that continuum does the " sure they're only a child themselves " argument stop. Maybe you'd care to actually answer that? Interesting though that you seem to think her sister being asleep mitigates things- usually awareness would go to the essence of consent where sexual acts are concerned.

I think the part in bold illustrates the problem you are having. A sexual act that involves two people requires consent. A sexual act performed in the presense of another person where their participation is required in any sense, whether it be that the person doing the act is staring at another person while performing the act, is taking pleasure in the other persons proximity,is revealing themselves to another party, all those things would require consent and are a violation on some level in my opinion where they are forced. Those acts belong on a continuum of deviant behaviour.


However this wasn't a two party sexual act. Her sister was not the inspiration or the imaginary focus of the act, she was completely unaware. It didn't require consent. I presume that as a teen you understood this and didn't consider what went on under your own covers a joint act with your parents and siblings in the next rooms . Your fundamental misunderstanding of that is more than bemusing, it is worrying.

The truth is in any home where siblings grew up sharing a room it's quite likely that this happened to them while the slept in the next bed, possibly in times gone when families were larger and people had 2 bedroomed houses this happened in the same bed.

To address your other point about children being accused of harassment for normal play, I don't condone that at all whether they're male or female, neither does anyone sane in my opinion.Children kissing children on the hand, little kids pulling each other skirts up, little kids thinking it's funny to push the bathroom door open when someone is in there are not deviant behaviour. They are normal experiences of kids pushing boundaries and demonstrating curiosity, playing with a taboo they don't understand and think are funny.
How you have managed to join the dots between mad instances of children being wrongly labelled or accussed, lena's experiences and gang rape is still utterly beyond me.
Oh and I fully understand the meaning of a continuum. You are referring to a continuum of deviant behaviours, normal curiosity and acts that are part of sexual discovery not involving another person do not belong on a continuum that encompasses violent rape.

tritium

Emerie Hissing Liar wrote: »

They're just very strange points on the continuum to pick. The line falls somewhere between putting your hand down your knickers while your sister is asleep in the room and three friends having penetrative sexual intercourse with someone in a manner that traumatised her. I think we can narrow the range of possibilities a wee bit like.

The question of pre-pubescent boys being held up as examples of rape culture for playing kiss-chase is a much more interesting and useful point of comparison, and for what it's worth I think if Dunham was male she'd be getting a much harder time right now. There are prejudices against males in relation to sexual crimes, but that defilement case is not a good way to illustrate them.

Except I didn't actually pick those two points. For that you'll have to turn to Gatling who actually brought up the comparison of the two cases originally! If you(or another poster) would like to use two different points then great, but the point s you pick aren't what defines the continuum- I realise thats difficult to accept in an emotional subject like this, but that's the cold unemotional truth if it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

tritium wrote: »

Except I didn't actually pick those two points. For that you'll have to turn to Gatling who actually brought up the comparison of the two cases originally! If you(or another poster) would like to use two different points then great, but the point s you pick aren't what defines the continuum- I realise thats difficult to accept in an emotional subject like this, but that's the cold unemotional truth if it.

Ah here, there's two of ye in it.

tritium wrote: »

I'm curious here though (and I confess I don't have a particular opinion on Lena here), where would you draw the line, both in terms of age and severity. On the one hand you have this young girl doing various things of various degrees of inappropriatness, between the ages of 7 and 17. Quite a few posters are saying she gets a pass as she was a child etc. Quite a few of this same posters were brandishing pitchforks in the thread on three 16 year olds being convicted of sexual assault- even deciding that they knew better than the law what crime had actually been committed (gang rape was the favoured refrain).

Now I'm not saying these are equivalent. They are however points on a continuum, for crimes involving children at various stages if development. So, in the interests of consistency, where do you draw the line. Does a 10 year old get a pass on a horrible crime that a 13 old doesn't? Do we apply some age above which there's no discretion? What is that age? Because as Wibbs examples have pointed out we're not being very consistent right now!

The points you pick don't define the continuum but they greatly influence the conversation. If I were to say "I got groped on the train the other day and the man didn't go to jail, even though a woman who tied a man up and forcibly fellated him did" those would be points on a continuum, but not ones that are particularly illustrative of anything about each other, or ones that foster much meaningful conversation.

enfant terrible

MOD: snip