Fact or Fiction? Rolling Stone's UVA Gang Rape Story (1 Viewer)

[Sweet J]

Ironic that people so quick to condemn false accusations are also so eager to find deliberate malice even though there's a perfectly logical and reasonable alternate explanation. Lying about rape is awful. Wrongly accusing someone of lying about rape is also not really all that cool. Probably should wait until you have something other than your gut feeling about the person before you do it.

That's a fair point, but to me the fact that she went out of her way to identify her rapist as a Republican provides at least a little evidence that her motives are malicious. The subtext seems to be "Oh those rapey Republicans." Maybe I'm reading too much into that, but my experience has generally been that when somebody says something that might be construed as a malicious swipe at the other tribe, it's almost always intended that way.

Right. But there is a big difference than taking a malicious swipe at the other Tribe (which she clearly did, and clearly intended), and taking a malicious swipe at a specific person (not so clear to me).

 

[TobiasFunke]

WRT #3, I'm going on week old information. If that was debunked at some point, I'd appreciate a link.

I think even the Breitbart story says that part of the story doesn't match this particular guy.

 

[Tom Servo]

This is a little more concretely ridiculous. From Volokh about Lena Dunham and "Barry," her supposed rapist. This is their initial legal offer.

TheWrap now reports that Random House has put out a statement exonerating this Identifiable Conservative Barry, and saying that the alleged rapist wasn’t really named Barry at all:

As indicated on the copyright page of Not That Kind of Girl by Lena Dunham, some names and identifying details in the book have been changed. The name ‘Barry’ referenced in the book is a pseudonym. Random House, on our own behalf and on behalf of our author, regrets the confusion that has led attorney Aaron Minc to post on GoFundMe on behalf of his client, whose first name is Barry.

We are offering to pay the fees Mr. Minc has billed his client to date. Our offer will allow Mr. Minc and his client to donate all of the crowd-funding raised to not-for-profit organizations assisting survivors of rape and sexual assault.

If Barry One's version of events is true, it's a shame it took this to go public for them to admit he wasn't the "Barry" in the book. Apparently he's been twisting in the wind for a long time.

Take it easy. The book's been out for ten weeks. Not sure anyone has publicly IDed the guy by last name or any other distinguishing characteristic, although admittedly it's hard to Google because searches turns up several pages of conservative blogs attacking Dunham.

What's a reasonable amount of time to be falsely accused of being a serial rapist?

Where was someone falsely accused of being a serial rapist? Not adequately identifying a first name pseudonym doesn't amount to an accusation of a real world person who shares some of the characteristics of the accused, including the name, but not others. It's an unfortunate coincidence and a sloppy mistake for which she and the publisher should be held accountable. But it doesn't come close to an accusation that this particular Barry was a rapist. That's like saying I'm accusing Barry Sanders of a crime if I say that a tall, bearded football player named Barry did it

But isn't it interesting that she identified him as the resident campus REPUBLICAN. She knew who she was pinning it on. He had to take down his social media accounts because people assumed he raped her.

Seems like a bit of a jump to me. Why would she do that since she presumably would know that this particular guy didn't rape her?

Occam's Razor applied here tells me it's much more likely an unfortunate coincidence (real person was a campus Republican not named Barry and the author and publisher weren't clear about their use of pseudonyms) than a deliberate false accusation, which she would have to know would come back to bite her. Especially since the physical description doesn't match- if she wanted to level a false accusation she could have done it accurately.

Given that she's an attention whore who throws up the "Who, me? What'd I do?" card every time she gets busted like this. IMO, this was NOT random.

Hmm. You do seem to be bringing an even-handed, level-headed approach to the subject. Perhaps I should defer to your opinion.

As opposed to your making every excuse for her?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

there was only one active Republican at the campus named Barry.

Well no wonder he had to go around raping people.

Got damn it....

I think it takes a certain amount of hubris to wander into a thread, commend everybody on their civility about the topic as if commendation was one's to give, and then laugh at a rape joke directed toward one side's political leanings that was clearly deleted by the OP.

Hey, look, I'm an ###. And humor comes in weird places. But then spare us the meta-commentary about how the thread is chugging along.

For what it's worth, I didn't delete out of a sense of propriety, I just decided the joke didn't make a lot of sense.

 

[General Malaise]

there was only one active Republican at the campus named Barry.

Well no wonder he had to go around raping people.

Got damn it....

I think it takes a certain amount of hubris to wander into a thread, commend everybody on their civility about the topic as if commendation was one's to give, and then laugh at a rape joke directed toward one side's political leanings that was clearly deleted by the OP.

Hey, look, I'm an ###. And humor comes in weird places. But then spare us the meta-commentary about how the thread is chugging along.

Fair. I didn't know it was deleted and I just wasn't expecting it. I will delete my comment and apologize for trying to say something nice.

 

[SacramentoBob]

WRT #3, I'm going on week old information. If that was debunked at some point, I'd appreciate a link.

Just googled, and they weren't able to verify that show ever existed.

 

[rockaction]

there was only one active Republican at the campus named Barry.

Well no wonder he had to go around raping people.

Got damn it....

I think it takes a certain amount of hubris to wander into a thread, commend everybody on their civility about the topic as if commendation was one's to give, and then laugh at a rape joke directed toward one side's political leanings that was clearly deleted by the OP.

Hey, look, I'm an ###. And humor comes in weird places. But then spare us the meta-commentary about how the thread is chugging along.

For what it's worth, I didn't delete out of a sense of propriety, I just decided the joke didn't make a lot of sense.

It's not the joke. It passes. I'll let my own comment pass.

 

[tommyboy]

lets not chum the seas gentlemen, all is going so fine. Heck, Christmas is right around the corner and this is one of the few threads WITHOUT timscrochrocket in it to #### it all up

 

[Steve Tasker]

It's like if you said there's a tall shock-jock with long curly black hair named Howard who has 2 satellite radio stations who raped me, then saying, oh, my apologies, "Howard" is a pseudonym. It's absurd on its face, but the publisher had no other cards to play to try to avoid liability. To see anyone actually believe it is comical.

Right, like when I say that CRAIG JAMES KILLED 5 HOOKERS WHILE AT SMU, I'm clearly using "Craig James" as a pseudonym.

 

[Bogeys]

there was only one active Republican at the campus named Barry.

Well no wonder he had to go around raping people.

Got damn it....

I think it takes a certain amount of hubris to wander into a thread, commend everybody on their civility about the topic as if commendation was one's to give, and then laugh at a rape joke directed toward one side's political leanings that was clearly deleted by the OP.

Hey, look, I'm an ###. And humor comes in weird places. But then spare us the meta-commentary about how the thread is chugging along.

Fair. I didn't know it was deleted and I just wasn't expecting it. I will delete my comment and apologize for trying to say something nice.

Oh come on, it was funny and I lean conservative on most fiscal issues and was a registered GOPer in college.

Nothing wrong with the joke or anyone laughing at it. I didn't think it was mean spirited at all.

 

[General Malaise]

lets not chum the seas gentlemen, all is going so fine. Heck, Christmas is right around the corner and this is one of the few threads WITHOUT timscrochrocket in it to #### it all up

He's right, I sounded like a jag. I'll just read going forward.

 

[SacramentoBob]

It's like if you said there's a tall shock-jock with long curly black hair named Howard who has 2 satellite radio stations who raped me, then saying, oh, my apologies, "Howard" is a pseudonym. It's absurd on its face, but the publisher had no other cards to play to try to avoid liability. To see anyone actually believe it is comical.

Right, like when I say that CRAIG JAMES KILLED 5 HOOKERS WHILE AT SMU, I'm clearly using "Craig James" as a pseudonym.

Like IOU.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I would've laughed, but I didn't get the joke. :whoosh:

 

[rockaction]

lets not chum the seas gentlemen, all is going so fine. Heck, Christmas is right around the corner and this is one of the few threads WITHOUT timscrochrocket in it to #### it all up

He's right, I sounded like a jag. I'll just read going forward.

Now I'm a total jag. I'm a jerk enough to where any meta stuff should have passed. My bad. This is the reason:

eta* Dumb comment on my end.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Hmm. You do seem to be bringing an even-handed, level-headed approach to the subject. Perhaps I should defer to your opinion.

As opposed to your making every excuse for her?

I've said repeatedly that the way the story was told was sloppy and irresponsible at best. I also said I don't like her TV show, and that if I was in a situation similar to this Barry guy I'd sue her and the publisher. I've "defended" her only because I'm not a huge fan of accusing women of lying about getting raped unless I have a pretty good reason to do so, and I don't think the existence of a guy with the same first name who matches some of the details of her narrative but doesn't match others is a good reason to do so. If you think that constitutes making every excuse for her, so be it.

 

[tommyboy]

lets not chum the seas gentlemen, all is going so fine. Heck, Christmas is right around the corner and this is one of the few threads WITHOUT timscrochrocket in it to #### it all up

He's right, I sounded like a jag. I'll just read going forward.

not referring to you, you should comment actually being from Oregon and all, you know people really want to know what folks from Oregon think.

I never even saw what you posted actually. was just trying to take a dig at Tim.

 

[General Malaise]

lets not chum the seas gentlemen, all is going so fine. Heck, Christmas is right around the corner and this is one of the few threads WITHOUT timscrochrocket in it to #### it all up

He's right, I sounded like a jag. I'll just read going forward.

Now I'm a total jag. I'm a jerk enough to where any meta stuff should have passed. My bad. This is the reason:

And I'm dumb enough that I had to Google meta-commentary.

I don't always make wise choices, but when I do,

I prefer them to be with words I don't have to look up.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I could see something like that making its way into someone's subconscious. I have a hard time believing she'd intentionally implicate someone she didn't know and had never met. It's not like she's some obscure writer who's going to sell a thousand books.

In a germ of a notion or concept, fine, 1st draft, place holder, I could see what you're saying.

Books are fact checked and vetted though, so either Random House messed up or she lied. Either way, some regular schmuck gets damaged in one of the more serious ways you can be

 

[Gawain]

I could see something like that making its way into someone's subconscious. I have a hard time believing she'd intentionally implicate someone she didn't know and had never met. It's not like she's some obscure writer who's going to sell a thousand books.

In a germ of a notion or concept, fine, 1st draft, place holder, I could see what you're saying.

Books are fact checked and vetted though, so either Random House messed up or she lied. Either way, some regular schmuck gets damaged in one of the more serious ways you can be

Yeah, but it's not like he actually had sex with her. That'd be way worse.

 

[pantagrapher]

I could see something like that making its way into someone's subconscious. I have a hard time believing she'd intentionally implicate someone she didn't know and had never met. It's not like she's some obscure writer who's going to sell a thousand books.

In a germ of a notion or concept, fine, 1st draft, place holder, I could see what you're saying.

Books are fact checked and vetted though, so either Random House messed up or she lied. Either way, some regular schmuck gets damaged in one of the more serious ways you can be

Yeah, but why would they fact-check a pseudonym? I could see her thinking she was pulling that name out of thin air, especially since it seems the actual Barry was someone she was probably aware of but who she never met.

 

[Sweet J]

edit. Don't want to beat dead horses.

 

[rockaction]

there was only one active Republican at the campus named Barry.

Well no wonder he had to go around raping people.

Got damn it....

I think it takes a certain amount of hubris to wander into a thread, commend everybody on their civility about the topic as if commendation was one's to give, and then laugh at a rape joke directed toward one side's political leanings that was clearly deleted by the OP.

Hey, look, I'm an ###. And humor comes in weird places. But then spare us the meta-commentary about how the thread is chugging along.

Fair. I didn't know it was deleted and I just wasn't expecting it. I will delete my comment and apologize for trying to say something nice.

Ok, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but:

1) Rockaction, I've appreciated most of your posts even if I don't agree with them

2) I don't want to discourage funny jokes here, even if they are off-color

3) fatguy is right, the joke doesn't really make sense, but it's still pretty funny, mostly because it's quick and witty and good for a chuckle (only by thinking about it do you realize it's a little nonsensicle).

4) rockaction, you are a little quick to the trigger about the rape joke being directed at the political leanings. Plenty of folks take a chance to get in a swipe against the other side. Fatguy and GM are as equal opportunty offenders as they get.

Yep. Agreed. All of it.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I could see something like that making its way into someone's subconscious. I have a hard time believing she'd intentionally implicate someone she didn't know and had never met. It's not like she's some obscure writer who's going to sell a thousand books.

In a germ of a notion or concept, fine, 1st draft, place holder, I could see what you're saying.Books are fact checked and vetted though, so either Random House messed up or she lied. Either way, some regular schmuck gets damaged in one of the more serious ways you can be

Yeah, but why would they fact-check a pseudonym? I could see her thinking she was pulling that name out of thin air, especially since it seems the actual Barry was someone she was probably aware of but who she never met.

As detailed she did not deliniate or specify that it was a psedonym. It is a firable offense by the editor.

It's not what color was the wallpaper In my bedroom growing up, if was a multiple chapter tent pole of the book (I assume I haven't read but a rape I would imagine is a significant event in ones life)

 

[Sweet J]

I could see something like that making its way into someone's subconscious. I have a hard time believing she'd intentionally implicate someone she didn't know and had never met. It's not like she's some obscure writer who's going to sell a thousand books.

In a germ of a notion or concept, fine, 1st draft, place holder, I could see what you're saying.Books are fact checked and vetted though, so either Random House messed up or she lied. Either way, some regular schmuck gets damaged in one of the more serious ways you can be

Yeah, but why would they fact-check a pseudonym? I could see her thinking she was pulling that name out of thin air, especially since it seems the actual Barry was someone she was probably aware of but who she never met.

As detailed she did not deliniate or specify that it was a psedonym. It is a firable offense by the editor.

It's not what color was the wallpaper In my bedroom growing up, if was a multiple chapter tent pole of the book (I assume I haven't read but a rape I would imagine is a significant event in ones life)

I'm not sure it matters but: I haven't read the book. But I've talked to people who have, and I got the impression that she detailed an event that wasn't "clearly" rape. That's the whole point -- the discussion of what is and what isn't rape. From what people who read the book explained, she detailed an event that was not pleasant for her, and that she and her friends discussed whether it was rape.

Can someone who has actually read the book weigh in here?

 

[Hang 10]

Read on the Washington post today that she identified other names that were changed but never mentioned anything when it came to Barry. Looks pretty bad.

 

[chauncey]

I could see something like that making its way into someone's subconscious. I have a hard time believing she'd intentionally implicate someone she didn't know and had never met. It's not like she's some obscure writer who's going to sell a thousand books.

In a germ of a notion or concept, fine, 1st draft, place holder, I could see what you're saying.Books are fact checked and vetted though, so either Random House messed up or she lied. Either way, some regular schmuck gets damaged in one of the more serious ways you can be

Yeah, but why would they fact-check a pseudonym? I could see her thinking she was pulling that name out of thin air, especially since it seems the actual Barry was someone she was probably aware of but who she never met.

As detailed she did not deliniate or specify that it was a psedonym. It is a firable offense by the editor.It's not what color was the wallpaper In my bedroom growing up, if was a multiple chapter tent pole of the book (I assume I haven't read but a rape I would imagine is a significant event in ones life)

I'm not sure it matters but: I haven't read the book. But I've talked to people who have, and I got the impression that she detailed an event that wasn't "clearly" rape. That's the whole point -- the discussion of what is and what isn't rape. From what people who read the book explained, she detailed an event that was not pleasant for her, and that she and her friends discussed whether it was rape.

Can someone who has actually read the book weigh in here?

I didn't read the whole book but read excerpts from two different chapters in which she described the encounter. She knew of the guy and his reputation, met at a bar/party, got drunk, fooled around, went home with him, 69'd, had sex a few times. The point of contention between her and her friends as to whether a sexual assault occured was that Barry started with a condom but then finished without one, against her wishes. Not sure if she meant against her wishes in the heat of the moment or after the fact. In the first chapter she describes the encounter as consensual. In the later chapter she states "I was not honest earlier, the encounter (specifically the lack of condom) was not consensual. And that the sex was rough.Also, the real Barry was a political leader on campus and worked part time at a small specialized library. The fictional Barry also wore purple boots, had a mustache, worked for a radio program, and graduated at the end of the current semester. The real Barry didn't match any of these qualities. Most likely she either made up the name Barry, or made up the entire event.

Reporters/investigators from Breitbart (I think this is the correct source, could be wrong) went to Oberlin and could not corroborate any of the details from the book to match any person regardless of name after interviewing students and faculty and looking through campus records.

 

[parasaurolophus]

This is a little more concretely ridiculous. From Volokh about Lena Dunham and "Barry," her supposed rapist. This is their initial legal offer.

TheWrap now reports that Random House has put out a statement exonerating this Identifiable Conservative Barry, and saying that the alleged rapist wasn’t really named Barry at all:

As indicated on the copyright page of Not That Kind of Girl by Lena Dunham, some names and identifying details in the book have been changed. The name ‘Barry’ referenced in the book is a pseudonym. Random House, on our own behalf and on behalf of our author, regrets the confusion that has led attorney Aaron Minc to post on GoFundMe on behalf of his client, whose first name is Barry.

We are offering to pay the fees Mr. Minc has billed his client to date. Our offer will allow Mr. Minc and his client to donate all of the crowd-funding raised to not-for-profit organizations assisting survivors of rape and sexual assault.

If Barry One's version of events is true, it's a shame it took this to go public for them to admit he wasn't the "Barry" in the book. Apparently he's been twisting in the wind for a long time.

Take it easy. The book's been out for ten weeks. Not sure anyone has publicly IDed the guy by last name or any other distinguishing characteristic, although admittedly it's hard to Google because searches turns up several pages of conservative blogs attacking Dunham.

If the guy was a liberal you would be up in arms about this. The fact that he is a republican is truly the only reason you really don't care. That is kind of sad.

 

[sublimeone]

I could see something like that making its way into someone's subconscious. I have a hard time believing she'd intentionally implicate someone she didn't know and had never met. It's not like she's some obscure writer who's going to sell a thousand books.

In a germ of a notion or concept, fine, 1st draft, place holder, I could see what you're saying.Books are fact checked and vetted though, so either Random House messed up or she lied. Either way, some regular schmuck gets damaged in one of the more serious ways you can be

Yeah, but why would they fact-check a pseudonym? I could see her thinking she was pulling that name out of thin air, especially since it seems the actual Barry was someone she was probably aware of but who she never met.

As detailed she did not deliniate or specify that it was a psedonym. It is a firable offense by the editor.

It's not what color was the wallpaper In my bedroom growing up, if was a multiple chapter tent pole of the book (I assume I haven't read but a rape I would imagine is a significant event in ones life)

I'm not sure it matters but: I haven't read the book. But I've talked to people who have, and I got the impression that she detailed an event that wasn't "clearly" rape. That's the whole point -- the discussion of what is and what isn't rape. From what people who read the book explained, she detailed an event that was not pleasant for her, and that she and her friends discussed whether it was rape.

Can someone who has actually read the book weigh in here?

I read the entire book cover to cover. It sucked.

 

[Sweet J]

I could see something like that making its way into someone's subconscious. I have a hard time believing she'd intentionally implicate someone she didn't know and had never met. It's not like she's some obscure writer who's going to sell a thousand books.

In a germ of a notion or concept, fine, 1st draft, place holder, I could see what you're saying.Books are fact checked and vetted though, so either Random House messed up or she lied. Either way, some regular schmuck gets damaged in one of the more serious ways you can be

Yeah, but why would they fact-check a pseudonym? I could see her thinking she was pulling that name out of thin air, especially since it seems the actual Barry was someone she was probably aware of but who she never met.

As detailed she did not deliniate or specify that it was a psedonym. It is a firable offense by the editor.It's not what color was the wallpaper In my bedroom growing up, if was a multiple chapter tent pole of the book (I assume I haven't read but a rape I would imagine is a significant event in ones life)

I'm not sure it matters but: I haven't read the book. But I've talked to people who have, and I got the impression that she detailed an event that wasn't "clearly" rape. That's the whole point -- the discussion of what is and what isn't rape. From what people who read the book explained, she detailed an event that was not pleasant for her, and that she and her friends discussed whether it was rape.

Can someone who has actually read the book weigh in here?

I didn't read the whole book but read excerpts from two different chapters in which she described the encounter. She knew of the guy and his reputation, met at a bar/party, got drunk, fooled around, went home with him, 69'd, had sex a few times. The point of contention between her and her friends as to whether a sexual assault occured was that Barry started with a condom but then finished without one, against her wishes. Not sure if she meant against her wishes in the heat of the moment or after the fact. In the first chapter she describes the encounter as consensual. In the later chapter she states "I was not honest earlier, the encounter (specifically the lack of condom) was not consensual. And that the sex was rough.Also, the real Barry was a political leader on campus and worked part time at a small specialized library. The fictional Barry also wore purple boots, had a mustache, worked for a radio program, and graduated at the end of the current semester. The real Barry didn't match any of these qualities. Most likely she either made up the name Barry, or made up the entire event.

Reporters/investigators from Breitbart (I think this is the correct source, could be wrong) went to Oberlin and could not corroborate any of the details from the book to match any person regardless of name after interviewing students and faculty and looking through campus records.

So here's the deal: From the bolded summary, it doesn't sound like she is saying she was raped. She is discussing whether taking a condom off without consent is rape, and also saying that the sex was rough and unpleasant.

My question: What the hell is there to "corroborate"?? The only people who are going to know whether that thing she described is her, and is the guy. There is nothing to "dispute" really, or to debunk. A million girls a year at college have unpleasant sex. Can someone who has actually read the passages or read the book say that she is definitively saying she was raped by this guy, or is she merely debating whether a rather sucky sexual encounter that she had should fall within the definition of rape (big difference, to me).

 

[tommyboy]

Theres no way she had sex with thay guy

 

[pantagrapher]

I could see something like that making its way into someone's subconscious. I have a hard time believing she'd intentionally implicate someone she didn't know and had never met. It's not like she's some obscure writer who's going to sell a thousand books.

In a germ of a notion or concept, fine, 1st draft, place holder, I could see what you're saying.Books are fact checked and vetted though, so either Random House messed up or she lied. Either way, some regular schmuck gets damaged in one of the more serious ways you can be

Yeah, but why would they fact-check a pseudonym? I could see her thinking she was pulling that name out of thin air, especially since it seems the actual Barry was someone she was probably aware of but who she never met.

As detailed she did not deliniate or specify that it was a psedonym. It is a firable offense by the editor.

It's not what color was the wallpaper In my bedroom growing up, if was a multiple chapter tent pole of the book (I assume I haven't read but a rape I would imagine is a significant event in ones life)

It's not a fireable offense by the editor. Editing a memoir isn't like editing a magazine piece. And really this entire thing is easily remedied by clarifying that she intended the name to be a pseudonym. I understand conservatives hate Lena Dunham. I'm not familiar with her work and doubt it's my kind of thing. But I don't understand what the gotcha is here. That she intentionally implicated someone she never met in an unpleasant sexual encounter? It doesn't make any sense.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here's Dunham's statement/apology.

Guessing there will be some sort of settlement as well. Hopefully everyone can now move on. Maybe people will show 10% of the concern for actual rape victims that they showed for a guy they thought was maybe wrongly accused of rape but wasn't really.

 

[rockaction]

Here's Dunham's statement/apology.

Guessing there will be some sort of settlement as well. Hopefully everyone can now move on. Maybe people will show 10% of the concern for actual rape victims that they showed for a guy they thought was maybe wrongly accused of rape but wasn't really.

Oh, come on. No need to take a shot at people who doubted the utterly dubious ethics of this "memoir."

I can just relate to being like the lone political guy on a 3,000 person campus and then hearing ten years later that my "likeness" raped somebody.

The amount of damage this guy and the other falsely accused guys are going and have gone through is tremendous. There was kind of a good blurb about it last night about the psychological damage a false accusation can do.

 

[rockaction]

Also, her statement sucks. And she sucks. And has sucked since she was young.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Here's Dunham's statement/apology.

Guessing there will be some sort of settlement as well. Hopefully everyone can now move on. Maybe people will show 10% of the concern for actual rape victims that they showed for a guy they thought was maybe wrongly accused of rape but wasn't really.

I feel like the publishers/editors responsible for oversight of her book share more responsiblity than Dunham, who from her statement obviously doesn't feel she did anything wrong by writing the story the way she did. She didn't really apologize as much as say she was sorry for what "Barry" experienced, she is a bright woman so I doubt the way she phrased that was incidental. Perhaps lawyers got involved though.

It would be excellent if people showed a much greater concern for rape victims and that those same people are also the ones most upset when a person is falsely accused of rape. There really shouldn't be two separate sets of camps when it comes to this issue.

 

[Steve Tasker]

It's not a fireable offense by the editor. Editing a memoir isn't like editing a magazine piece. And really this entire thing is easily remedied by clarifying that she intended the name to be a pseudonym. I understand conservatives hate Lena Dunham. I'm not familiar with her work and doubt it's my kind of thing. But I don't understand what the gotcha is here. That she intentionally implicated someone she never met in an unpleasant sexual encounter? It doesn't make any sense.

I feel like you're the only one making sense on the Dunham topic.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Here's Dunham's statement/apology.

Guessing there will be some sort of settlement as well. Hopefully everyone can now move on. Maybe people will show 10% of the concern for actual rape victims that they showed for a guy they thought was maybe wrongly accused of rape but wasn't really.

That's a non-apology. She's "sorry about all he [barry] has experienced" but explicitly absolves herself of any fault and lays the blame with everybody else.

I barely know who Lena Dunham is. I know she exists and she has a television show that is apparently widely-watched and controversial. That's literally it. Everything else I know about her I've learned from this little episode, and I only know about her book and her false rape allegation because it happened to get linked up with the UVA story. What I do know, though, is that if you're a celebrity and you accuse somebody of raping you, you can't really come back in good faith and criticize journalists for trying to track down the guy who you accused of a serious felony. That's just stupid and shows a profound ignorance about the world works.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's Dunham's statement/apology.

Guessing there will be some sort of settlement as well. Hopefully everyone can now move on. Maybe people will show 10% of the concern for actual rape victims that they showed for a guy they thought was maybe wrongly accused of rape but wasn't really.

Uh that is not good, she only did this when forced into a corner, pretty vile stuff really. Looks like her 5 minutes are almost up.

And actually someone that delegitimizes actual rape accusations with false stories for personal gain risking destroying lives and personal reputations forever might just be a couple notches better than the actual rapist in moral abjectivity but that's all.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So here's the deal: From the bolded summary, it doesn't sound like she is saying she was raped.

In her "apology," she uses the term "sexual assault" over and over to describe her encounter with "Barry," and she also keeps referring to herself as a "survivor." Any ambiguity that she was trying to project in the book seems to be completely lacking from her latest statement.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Here's Dunham's statement/apology.

Guessing there will be some sort of settlement as well. Hopefully everyone can now move on. Maybe people will show 10% of the concern for actual rape victims that they showed for a guy they thought was maybe wrongly accused of rape but wasn't really.

Uh that is not good, she only did this when forced into a corner, pretty vile stuff really.

And actually someone that delegitimizes actual rape accusations with false stories for personal gain risking destroying lives and personal reputations forever might just be a couple notches better than the actual rapist in moral abjectivity but that's all.

Do you have proof that she's lying about being sexually assaulted? If not, that's a really terrible accusation to level at someone. I hope you have something to back that up. Otherwise I'd say you're the one "delegitimitizing actual rape accusations."

 

[pantherclub]

Here's Dunham's statement/apology.

Guessing there will be some sort of settlement as well. Hopefully everyone can now move on. Maybe people will show 10% of the concern for actual rape victims that they showed for a guy they thought was maybe wrongly accused of rape but wasn't really.

how convenient, she is playing the victim card

she is truly a worthless human

 

[pantherclub]

Here's Dunham's statement/apology.

Guessing there will be some sort of settlement as well. Hopefully everyone can now move on. Maybe people will show 10% of the concern for actual rape victims that they showed for a guy they thought was maybe wrongly accused of rape but wasn't really.

Uh that is not good, she only did this when forced into a corner, pretty vile stuff really.

And actually someone that delegitimizes actual rape accusations with false stories for personal gain risking destroying lives and personal reputations forever might just be a couple notches better than the actual rapist in moral abjectivity but that's all.

Do you have proof that she's lying about being sexually assaulted? If not, that's a really terrible accusation to level at someone. I hope you have something to back that up. Otherwise I'd say you're the one "delegitimitizing actual rape accusations."

given her past history, this revelation and her crusades then yeah I think she is probably lying about it.

 

[jonessed]

Here's Dunham's statement/apology.

Guessing there will be some sort of settlement as well. Hopefully everyone can now move on. Maybe people will show 10% of the concern for actual rape victims that they showed for a guy they thought was maybe wrongly accused of rape but wasn't really.

Uh that is not good, she only did this when forced into a corner, pretty vile stuff really.

And actually someone that delegitimizes actual rape accusations with false stories for personal gain risking destroying lives and personal reputations forever might just be a couple notches better than the actual rapist in moral abjectivity but that's all.

Do you have proof that she's lying about being sexually assaulted? If not, that's a really terrible accusation to level at someone. I hope you have something to back that up. Otherwise I'd say you're the one "delegitimitizing actual rape accusations."

given her past history, this revelation and her crusades then yeah I think she is probably lying about it.

She didn't describe a rape so it's moot anyway. A debate over condom use is not rape.

 

[FlapJacks]

there was only one active Republican at the campus named Barry.

Well no wonder he had to go around raping people.

Got damn it....

I think it takes a certain amount of hubris to wander into a thread, commend everybody on their civility about the topic as if commendation was one's to give, and then laugh at a rape joke directed toward one side's political leanings that was clearly deleted by the OP.

Hey, look, I'm an ###. And humor comes in weird places. But then spare us the meta-commentary about how the thread is chugging along.

Fair. I didn't know it was deleted and I just wasn't expecting it. I will delete my comment and apologize for trying to say something nice.

Oh come on, it was funny and I lean conservative on most fiscal issues and was a registered GOPer in college.

Nothing wrong with the joke or anyone laughing at it. I didn't think it was mean spirited at all.

rape is a really not something to joke about

 

[Bogeys]

there was only one active Republican at the campus named Barry.

Well no wonder he had to go around raping people.

Got damn it....

I think it takes a certain amount of hubris to wander into a thread, commend everybody on their civility about the topic as if commendation was one's to give, and then laugh at a rape joke directed toward one side's political leanings that was clearly deleted by the OP.

Hey, look, I'm an ###. And humor comes in weird places. But then spare us the meta-commentary about how the thread is chugging along.

Fair. I didn't know it was deleted and I just wasn't expecting it. I will delete my comment and apologize for trying to say something nice.

Oh come on, it was funny and I lean conservative on most fiscal issues and was a registered GOPer in college.

Nothing wrong with the joke or anyone laughing at it. I didn't think it was mean spirited at all.

rape is a really not something to joke about

I didn't take it as a rape joke, I took at as a shot at a conservative on a liberal college campus.

 

[pantherclub]

there was only one active Republican at the campus named Barry.

Well no wonder he had to go around raping people.

Got damn it....

I think it takes a certain amount of hubris to wander into a thread, commend everybody on their civility about the topic as if commendation was one's to give, and then laugh at a rape joke directed toward one side's political leanings that was clearly deleted by the OP.

Hey, look, I'm an ###. And humor comes in weird places. But then spare us the meta-commentary about how the thread is chugging along.

Fair. I didn't know it was deleted and I just wasn't expecting it. I will delete my comment and apologize for trying to say something nice.

Oh come on, it was funny and I lean conservative on most fiscal issues and was a registered GOPer in college.

Nothing wrong with the joke or anyone laughing at it. I didn't think it was mean spirited at all.

rape is a really not something to joke about

as Trey Parker would say "It either all has to be okay or none of it's okay."

You cannot pick and choose what you can make jokes about

 

[Sweet J]

Also, her statement sucks.

Respectfully disagree. I think much of what she lays out there is thoughtful, well written, and compelling. It's worth reading with an eye towards a neutral author (I know this would be difficult -- if Ann Coulter wrote something that I happened to agree with, and did so in a non-revolting manner, it would be hard to say to myself "well, regardless of the person writing the piece, it is thoughtful and well-written").

But I understand how folks would not agree. Maybe much of what she writes is controversial. I don't think so, but I can see how someone else would.

 

[Sweet J]

So here's the deal: From the bolded summary, it doesn't sound like she is saying she was raped.

In her "apology," she uses the term "sexual assault" over and over to describe her encounter with "Barry," and she also keeps referring to herself as a "survivor." Any ambiguity that she was trying to project in the book seems to be completely lacking from her latest statement.

fair enough. I haven't read the piece myself. But from the "clarification," she definitately uses the term "sexual assault."

I guess I'm where Tobias is: The only thing "proven" here is that she used a name (Barry) that happens to be the name of a real person (or, alternatively, if you are so inclined on believing, she intentionally smeared the name of a real person by using his name as a pseudonym for her acual assaulter). I'm not sure anyone "proved" that she wasn't assaulted.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So here's the deal: From the bolded summary, it doesn't sound like she is saying she was raped.

In her "apology," she uses the term "sexual assault" over and over to describe her encounter with "Barry," and she also keeps referring to herself as a "survivor." Any ambiguity that she was trying to project in the book seems to be completely lacking from her latest statement.

fair enough. I haven't read the piece myself. But from the "clarification," she definitately uses the term "sexual assault."

I guess I'm where Tobias is: The only thing "proven" here is that she used a name (Barry) that happens to be the name of a real person (or, alternatively, if you are so inclined on believing, she intentionally smeared the name of a real person by using his name as a pseudonym for her acual assaulter). I'm not sure anyone "proved" that she wasn't assaulted.

That's correct. What has been disproven is the statement "I was raped by Barry, the well-known Campus Republican." That allegation is now known to be false. The claim that "I was raped by somebody" may still very well be true. But that's different enough from the first statement that it should be treated as an entirely different allegation.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's Dunham's statement/apology.

Guessing there will be some sort of settlement as well. Hopefully everyone can now move on. Maybe people will show 10% of the concern for actual rape victims that they showed for a guy they thought was maybe wrongly accused of rape but wasn't really.

Uh that is not good, she only did this when forced into a corner, pretty vile stuff really.

And actually someone that delegitimizes actual rape accusations with false stories for personal gain risking destroying lives and personal reputations forever might just be a couple notches better than the actual rapist in moral abjectivity but that's all.

Do you have proof that she's lying about being sexually assaulted? If not, that's a really terrible accusation to level at someone. I hope you have something to back that up. Otherwise I'd say you're the one "delegitimitizing actual rape accusations."

Not what I said there, Tobes.