This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Well then I guess I'm confused. Because it sure sounded like you described Dunham as "someone that delegitimizes actual rape accusations with false stories for personal gain," which would obviously mean that you were calling Dunham's story a false one.
The claim that she was sexually assaulted by a prominent campus republican at Oberlin may still be true.
I think her statement sucks because of how tone-deaf it is with regards to "Barry." I agree that the rest of the statement (with regards to how women are often treated when dealing with sexual assault, not with regards to the veracity of her own account of being sexually assaulted. I have no idea about that.) is true, and what's in it is valuable, but I think the statement that "Barry" is a pseudonym should have come out much earlier, as its own statement, and I think the way she addresses this, almost as a throwaway comment, makes her seem like she doesn't really care about the real impact of using someone's name and accusing them of sexual assault.
That's a legit point. I agree should have emphasized the apology to/sympathy for this Barry guy more. She addressed it at the outset which is nice, but by turning the statement into a long essay she minimized it.
IMO, anyone who uses any of the bolded statements isn't really apologizing. If you think it is, try using one of those on your wife the next time you screw up and see how far it gets you.
Lena Dunham isn't the first person to do this so I feel kind of bad about singling her out, but it always gets on my nerves when somebody "apologizes" for a mistake on their part (usually something like "I regret that anyone was offended" or "I'm sorry for any harm that occurred" as opposed to "I regret that I offended people" or "I'm sorry for the harm that I caused") and then goes on to lecture the audience about how much they have to learn. I know that's just SOP for the genre these days.
Maybe you are, but maybe it's my fault for not being clear:
How long exactly has this guy who is/was about to sue been under a cloud of suspicion because of her book and how long has she been refusing to clarify things? How long has this guy been twisting in the wind and how much longer will he continue to be affected by this?
Uh, why not? He should go to jail, he may rape others as well so she is putting others at risk.
Re: the bolded- It's been less than a week. The Breitbart story was published on the 4th, obviously took a few days for it to garner attention, Dunham column posted last night.
I believe his explanation may be a bit embellished, but I believe it's possible he was about to do heroin then changed his mind because... well doing heroin is pretty ####### dumb.
Sounds like it's been at least a month. It was released first week of September so it's been 3 months.
You think the current President Obama was at one point in his life standing in a back alley ready to do heroine? Ok, I don't, you don't need to get to the alley to know it's dumb. You're dumb to be in the alley in the first place. He ain't dumb.
Now an investigation is the same as an accusation? She "let a man stand accused for a month" even though it appears that neither she nor almost anyone else other than the reporter connected her narrative to an actual person until a couple days ago?
I have yet to see anyone claim that he asked for clarification and was denied. Link?
I think that is a pretty interesting discussion to have. I'm as pro-women and anti-harrassment, anti-sexual abuse, pro-consent guy there is, but I can't get my head around "I only consented to sex with you if you use a condom, so if you sneak it off during sex, it is something that I did not consent to and therefore rape."
Wow, really, you don't think someone has any duty to others or society to out this guy?
There are a whole lot of women, probably millions, who have been sexually assaulted in some way and who have never gone to the police for a variety of reasons. Hurt, shame, fear, confusion. Just to name a few. I personally would not feel comfortable with a blanket statement that victims of crime (in general) or sexual assault in particular have some sort of "duty" to do anything other than recover. If I wouldn't make a general statement, than I likely wouldn't make it just because I find one particular victim (or alleged victim, if you'd prefer) less than compelling.
Sweet J is right. Putting another burden on people who have already been victimized by violent crime (rape or anything else) is stupid and a form of victim-blaming.
Good lord, where do you people get this stuff? The man is a rapist, he could rape someone else, he may have already raped someone else. You're out of your mind. There is no blame on the victim here, but she has a duty to report the crime and see this man punished. These animals expect their victims to be quiet and live in fear, this is totally the wrong message to send out if this is what she is doing.
I think it's fair to say that victims perhaps have a moral obligation to out a criminal, but not a legal obligation. By not speaking out, you're letting other people experience all the hurt, shame, fear, confusion you did. Lots of crimes result in those same feelings, but we generally don't have any problem outing those perps. Why are we encouraging our women to just keep their mouths shut after they've been raped?
Hey I agree, I know why they don't, I have empathy for them, totally, but Dunham is writing a book as a celebrity, "stay silent and don't tell the police" is one lousy message to convey here.
So she is protecting the identity of the rapist from reporters!
Your lack of sympathy for sexual assault victims here is pretty horrible. Dunham's status as a celebrity doesn't change her right to deal with what she went through however she chooses- by going public without naming names, by going to the police, by staying silent, by speaking only to a shrink about it, by speaking to friends about it, whatever.
Wow. I have total, complete, absolute respect and feeling for victims. However, she states she is taking active steps to protect a rapist 8 years after her trauma. Eight years and she is protecting a rapist. From reporters.
What? Dunham is the one being silent here.
I agree, but she hasn't told the whole story.
Criticizing a victim's chosen means of of dealing with her assault doesn't strike me as total, complete, absolute respect for a victim. It strikes me as the opposite.
What she described is in the gray area of sexual assault and involved the guy refusing to wear a rubber. Come on. She isnt protecting a violent stranger rapist.
How is that aspect of the allegation known to be false? Since "Barry" is a pseudonym, isn't it still possible that she was raped by a different well-known campus Republican?
Having an STD and not informing your partner would be an assault, probably aggravated assault, perhaps with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
The "the well-known" seems pretty specific, why would she specify "the well-known" guy named ____ the "campus Republican." That's pretty pointed. How many other "well know campus Republican"(s), whom she would have known, were there?
Right. Which is why at first in her book she doesnt call it rape but later decides that it amounted to rape to her because it contained non-consensual elements.
Todd, thanks. (No, I guess she wouldn't go tell the cops, then or now, and I guess she doesn't need to be outing the guy either).
One can hopefully understand why she isnt interested now in having someone potentially prosecuted and vilified over a gray area even she wasnt sure about.
