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

[SaintsInDome2006]

Right, I agree.

 

[Tom Servo]

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."

Thanks for clarifying that you're a decent person.

 

[Zow]

Speaking out was never about exposing the man who assaulted me.

Uh, why not? He should go to jail, he may rape others as well so she is putting others at risk.

That's a jackass position for you to take. Victims of crime don't have any obligation to do anything.

Wow, really, you don't think someone has any duty to others or society to out this guy?

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.

Obviously all things being equal we would all prefer if they reported it. But I'm not gonna value that over giving victims the right to deal with their trauma in whatever manner they think is best for them, not even close.

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.

No she doesn't.

The state may have a legitimate interest in punishing the man which is why they have the ability to compel testimony and cooperation from a victim. But there is simply no legal precedent creating any sort of affirmative duty on victims to report crimes.

 

[FUBAR]

Speaking out was never about exposing the man who assaulted me.

Uh, why not? He should go to jail, he may rape others as well so she is putting others at risk.

That's a jackass position for you to take. Victims of crime don't have any obligation to do anything.

Wow, really, you don't think someone has any duty to others or society to out this guy?

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.

Obviously all things being equal we would all prefer if they reported it. But I'm not gonna value that over giving victims the right to deal with their trauma in whatever manner they think is best for them, not even close.

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.

No she doesn't.

The state may have a legitimate interest in punishing the man which is why they have the ability to compel testimony and cooperation from a victim. But there is simply no legal precedent creating any sort of affirmative duty on victims to report crimes.

pretty sure he doesn't mean a legal duty / requirement.

 

[rockaction]

Speaking out was never about exposing the man who assaulted me.

Uh, why not? He should go to jail, he may rape others as well so she is putting others at risk.

That's a jackass position for you to take. Victims of crime don't have any obligation to do anything.

Wow, really, you don't think someone has any duty to others or society to out this guy?

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.

Obviously all things being equal we would all prefer if they reported it. But I'm not gonna value that over giving victims the right to deal with their trauma in whatever manner they think is best for them, not even close.

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.

No she doesn't.

The state may have a legitimate interest in punishing the man which is why they have the ability to compel testimony and cooperation from a victim. But there is simply no legal precedent creating any sort of affirmative duty on victims to report crimes.

I think moral duty is implied here, Zow. Which has actually been an argument where the 'twain meet of LE types and sexual abuse activists.

 

[Joe Summer]

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

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?

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?

Her description may seem specific, but it's actually pretty vague. He's "well known", but by what definition? Well known by the entire campus? Well known by her circle of friends? Well known by just one person? And is he "well known" for being a Republican, or is his political affiliation unknown to all except those he's intimate with? Without further details, I don't think it's accurate to say that the allegation is known to be false.

 

[FUBAR]

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."

Thanks for clarifying that you're a decent person.

as opposed to the anti-women, pro-harrassment, pro-sexual abuse, anti-consent guys around here.

 

[Tom Servo]

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."

Thanks for clarifying that you're a decent person.

as opposed to the anti-women, pro-harrassment, pro-sexual abuse, anti-consent guys around here.

Good to see that you've seen those rascals around here too. Darn varmints.

 

[Zow]

Speaking out was never about exposing the man who assaulted me.

Uh, why not? He should go to jail, he may rape others as well so she is putting others at risk.

That's a jackass position for you to take. Victims of crime don't have any obligation to do anything.

Wow, really, you don't think someone has any duty to others or society to out this guy?

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.

Obviously all things being equal we would all prefer if they reported it. But I'm not gonna value that over giving victims the right to deal with their trauma in whatever manner they think is best for them, not even close.

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.

No she doesn't.

The state may have a legitimate interest in punishing the man which is why they have the ability to compel testimony and cooperation from a victim. But there is simply no legal precedent creating any sort of affirmative duty on victims to report crimes.

I think moral duty is implied here, Zow. Which has actually been an argument where the 'twain meet of LE types and sexual abuse activists.

Ah. Wasn't entirely sure based on the context of his previous posts.

 

[FlapJacks]

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.

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.

I think most people who agree that sexual assault is a real problem on college campuses and in the country in general, also understand the flip side of the issue, which is that an accusation of sexual assault is also a very big deal. Dunham doesn't seem to understand that, based on her statement.

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.

The problem is that she undermined her own credibility on multiple accounts, including taking too long to respond and the tepidness of her apology. She can't be unaware of how devastating an allegation this is for Barry.

 

[rockaction]

Very prescient quote by Megan McArdle (damn, did somebody here ever get me hooked) about why we might be having this Lena Dunham discussion.

Activists fighting rape are fighting for two things that actually work against each other. On the one hand, they want the harshest possible moral, social, legal, and administrative sanctions for sexual assault -- as they should, because this is a crime second only to murder in its brutality. On the other hand, they want the broadest possible standards for deciding that a rape has occurred, weighted very, very heavily toward including true assaults, rather than excluding false, ambiguous, or hard-to-prove accusations.

This is not a bargain that a liberal society will strike. You can have drastic punishment of offenses, or you can have a low threshold of evidence for imposing punishments; you cannot have both. If you broaden your criteria to include lesser offenses like "non-consensual kissing," or more cases where there's a higher possibility that the accused was innocent, then you will encounter resistance to heavy punishment. The jury of public opinion will nullify.

 

[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.

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.

I did, too. I was just pissing and grousing, as I've said a few times now in apology. It wasn't the humor, it was the meta-commentary, which I also should have shut up about. If we can't joke within bounds, we're screwed. I personally find fatguy's humor pretty consistently darn funny when he chimes in to comment on issues which we inevitably wind up on the other side on.

 

[rockaction]

And that this discussion moved from the UVA scandal -- now almost, in this news cycle that we live in, thoroughly discredited for at least its story (if not the plight of the identified victim) -- to Dunham's is precisely what McArdle gets at and Dunham admits to in her statement and her weird preface to the "memoir" and its various archetypal inhabitants.

Maybe Dunham's smarter than us and sees exactly this trade-off. Or perhaps, as I thought before in my "sucks" comment, she's just a reckless and unrepentant activist who can depend on a whole lot of money and financial support both from her parents AND her own endeavors (please don't miss that) to make a point, ruin someone's life, and then make it go away with some cold, hard dollars.

 

[pantagrapher]

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.

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.

I think most people who agree that sexual assault is a real problem on college campuses and in the country in general, also understand the flip side of the issue, which is that an accusation of sexual assault is also a very big deal. Dunham doesn't seem to understand that, based on her statement.

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.

The problem is that she undermined her own credibility on multiple accounts, including taking too long to respond and the tepidness of her apology. She can't be unaware of how devastating an allegation this is for Barry.

Exactly how devastating has it been, considering he knew it wasn't him and now everyone knows it wasn't him?

 

[tommyboy]

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.

its not widely watched. The ratings are horrible. She's just the "lefts" latest little shiney thing that the east coast elite thinks is cool.

they'll drop her like a hot potato now.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

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.

I think most people who agree that sexual assault is a real problem on college campuses and in the country in general, also understand the flip side of the issue, which is that an accusation of sexual assault is also a very big deal. Dunham doesn't seem to understand that, based on her statement.

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.

The problem is that she undermined her own credibility on multiple accounts, including taking too long to respond and the tepidness of her apology. She can't be unaware of how devastating an allegation this is for Barry.

Exactly how devastating has it been, considering he knew it wasn't him and now everyone knows it wasn't him?

Apparently enough for Random House and Dunham to pay a settlement. Let's see, man has quiet peaceful life when all of a sudden he is pegged as a sexual assaulter or "rapist" of a well known liberal causes active star. Yeah, how bad could that get.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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

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?

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?

Her description may seem specific, but it's actually pretty vague. He's "well known", but by what definition? Well known by the entire campus? Well known by her circle of friends? Well known by just one person? And is he "well known" for being a Republican, or is his political affiliation unknown to all except those he's intimate with? Without further details, I don't think it's accurate to say that the allegation is known to be false.

She literally named the guy. She didn't just say that she was raped by a Republican. She said that she was raped by Barry The Republican. Those are two different claims and should be evaluated differently.

 

[pantagrapher]

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.

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.

I think most people who agree that sexual assault is a real problem on college campuses and in the country in general, also understand the flip side of the issue, which is that an accusation of sexual assault is also a very big deal. Dunham doesn't seem to understand that, based on her statement.

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.

The problem is that she undermined her own credibility on multiple accounts, including taking too long to respond and the tepidness of her apology. She can't be unaware of how devastating an allegation this is for Barry.

Exactly how devastating has it been, considering he knew it wasn't him and now everyone knows it wasn't him?

Apparently enough for Random House and Dunham to pay a settlement. Let's see, man has quiet peaceful life when all of a sudden he is pegged as a sexual assaulter or "rapist" of a well known liberal causes active star. Yeah, how bad could that get.

He wasn't pegged as a sexual predator any more than someone who resembles a wanted poster is pegged as a criminal. If he gets some money, it's because that's the way things works these days, not because he was actually traumatized. Please, how delicate is this guy? Is it that hard to say "We never met. She's not talking about me, and I'm sure she'll confirm that"?

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

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.

I think most people who agree that sexual assault is a real problem on college campuses and in the country in general, also understand the flip side of the issue, which is that an accusation of sexual assault is also a very big deal. Dunham doesn't seem to understand that, based on her statement.

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.

The problem is that she undermined her own credibility on multiple accounts, including taking too long to respond and the tepidness of her apology. She can't be unaware of how devastating an allegation this is for Barry.

Exactly how devastating has it been, considering he knew it wasn't him and now everyone knows it wasn't him?

Apparently enough for Random House and Dunham to pay a settlement. Let's see, man has quiet peaceful life when all of a sudden he is pegged as a sexual assaulter or "rapist" of a well known liberal causes active star. Yeah, how bad could that get.

He wasn't pegged as a sexual predator any more than someone who resembles a wanted poster is pegged as a criminal. If he gets some money, it's because that's the way things works these days, not because he was actually traumatized. Please, how delicate is this guy? Is it that hard to say "We never met. She's not talking about me, and I'm sure she'll confirm that"?

I think they just offered to pay her legal fees.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

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?

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?

Her description may seem specific, but it's actually pretty vague. He's "well known", but by what definition? Well known by the entire campus? Well known by her circle of friends? Well known by just one person? And is he "well known" for being a Republican, or is his political affiliation unknown to all except those he's intimate with? Without further details, I don't think it's accurate to say that the allegation is known to be false.

She literally named the guy. She didn't just say that she was raped by a Republican. She said that she was raped by Barry The Republican. Those are two different claims and should be evaluated differently.

And oh by the way, he also had a mustache allegedly. The "well known" "mustachioed campus Republican" who knew Dunham ... named "Barry." And he was the "campus's resident conservative." And he wore “purple cowboy boots.” And he “worked at the campus library." And she names the talk radio show he hosted. Sure could have been anyone at a school of <3000 students.

So now we know it's all those things, just not a guy named Barry. Ok.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

My opinion is that the Republican part is one of the descriptions that was made up and Dunham and everyone else responsible for signing off on the book failed to understand how that could blow up in their face. Don't describe the guy as a Republican and keep everything else the same and there is no controversy.

 

[MaxThreshold]

My opinion is that the Republican part is one of the descriptions that was made up and Dunham and everyone else responsible for signing off on the book failed to understand how that could blow up in their face. Don't describe the guy as a Republican and keep everything else the same and there is no controversy.

I bet that if her supposed rapist was a Democrat she never would have mentioned it at all. She DELIBERATELY mentioned it for a reason - and that's to imply that Republicans are rapists because she's a far left nutjob.

I don't buy the innocent, deer-in-the-headlights reasoning. She and her publisher new exactly what they were doing.

 

[SacramentoBob]

One thing in Dunham's favor: She didn't get pregnant. Under the legitimate rape standard, I think this is an open and shut case of rape.

 

[TobiasFunke]

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

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?

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?

Her description may seem specific, but it's actually pretty vague. He's "well known", but by what definition? Well known by the entire campus? Well known by her circle of friends? Well known by just one person? And is he "well known" for being a Republican, or is his political affiliation unknown to all except those he's intimate with? Without further details, I don't think it's accurate to say that the allegation is known to be false.

She literally named the guy. She didn't just say that she was raped by a Republican. She said that she was raped by Barry The Republican. Those are two different claims and should be evaluated differently.

And oh by the way, he also had a mustache allegedly. The "well known" "mustachioed campus Republican" who knew Dunham ... named "Barry." And he was the "campus's resident conservative." And he wore “purple cowboy boots.” And he “worked at the campus library." And she names the talk radio show he hosted. Sure could have been anyone at a school of <3000 students.

Some of those things apparently weren't true about this Barry guy, though- the mustache, the boots and the radio show. So that actually goes against your notion that she named him.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

My opinion is that the Republican part is one of the descriptions that was made up and Dunham and everyone else responsible for signing off on the book failed to understand how that could blow up in their face. Don't describe the guy as a Republican and keep everything else the same and there is no controversy.

I bet that if her supposed rapist was a Democrat she never would have mentioned it at all. She DELIBERATELY mentioned it for a reason - and that's to imply that Republicans are rapists because she's a far left nutjob.

I don't buy the innocent, deer-in-the-headlights reasoning. She and her publisher new exactly what they were doing.

I think she included it for the same reason that she included saying the guy had a stash...both in her mind and in the mind of the folks that will purchase this book are creepy. I didn't claim deer in the headlights reasoning, I simply said they failed to see the unintented consequences of including it (which is that right wing zealots like the folks at Breibart would get an instance hard on over it and investigate).

 

[pantagrapher]

My opinion is that the Republican part is one of the descriptions that was made up and Dunham and everyone else responsible for signing off on the book failed to understand how that could blow up in their face. Don't describe the guy as a Republican and keep everything else the same and there is no controversy.

I bet that if her supposed rapist was a Democrat she never would have mentioned it at all. She DELIBERATELY mentioned it for a reason - and that's to imply that Republicans are rapists because she's a far left nutjob.

I don't buy the innocent, deer-in-the-headlights reasoning. She and her publisher new exactly what they were doing.

Maybe she included it because she's a famous liberal and wanted to underscore how impaired she was.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

My opinion is that the Republican part is one of the descriptions that was made up and Dunham and everyone else responsible for signing off on the book failed to understand how that could blow up in their face. Don't describe the guy as a Republican and keep everything else the same and there is no controversy.

I bet that if her supposed rapist was a Democrat she never would have mentioned it at all. She DELIBERATELY mentioned it for a reason - and that's to imply that Republicans are rapists because she's a far left nutjob.

I don't buy the innocent, deer-in-the-headlights reasoning. She and her publisher new exactly what they were doing.

Maybe she included it because she's a famous liberal and wanted to underscore how impaired she was.

She already details how she was on cocaine at the time, so she probably covered that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My opinion is that the Republican part is one of the descriptions that was made up and Dunham and everyone else responsible for signing off on the book failed to understand how that could blow up in their face. Don't describe the guy as a Republican and keep everything else the same and there is no controversy.

That's very possible, but then I think it behooves Dunham to say "Hey I just made that part and in hindsight it was a pretty dumb thing to do. I'm sorry."

One item that keeps coming up both in Dunham's case and the UVA case is the issue of how much of a particular story you can change before moving to an entirely new allegation. That sort of thing inherently lies on a continuum. For example:

a) "I was raped by Joe Blow on August 15 in a room with yellow wallpaper." It turns out that the wallpaper was actually white, not yellow. "Okay, I got that detail wrong, but I stand by my allegation." I think we can all agree that that's fair.

b) "I was raped by Joe Blow on August 15 in a room with yellow wallpaper." It turns out that Joe Blow was out of the country during the entire month of August and could not possibly have been the rapist. "Okay, I got the identity of the rapist wrong, but I stand by my allegation." Surely we can all agree that shouldn't be allowed to fly.

In (a), the stuff that changed was incidental, whereas in (b), the changes are absolutely central to the charge. I get the sense that many of us (me included) are concluding that Jackie and Dunham are liars because we think the stuff that they're going back and changing put them at a point much closer to (b) on the continuum, while others are viewing their amendments as closer to (a).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

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?

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?

Her description may seem specific, but it's actually pretty vague. He's "well known", but by what definition? Well known by the entire campus? Well known by her circle of friends? Well known by just one person? And is he "well known" for being a Republican, or is his political affiliation unknown to all except those he's intimate with? Without further details, I don't think it's accurate to say that the allegation is known to be false.

She literally named the guy. She didn't just say that she was raped by a Republican. She said that she was raped by Barry The Republican. Those are two different claims and should be evaluated differently.

And oh by the way, he also had a mustache allegedly. The "well known" "mustachioed campus Republican" who knew Dunham ... named "Barry." And he was the "campus's resident conservative." And he wore “purple cowboy boots.” And he “worked at the campus library." And she names the talk radio show he hosted. Sure could have been anyone at a school of <3000 students.

Some of those things apparently weren't true about this Barry guy, though- the mustache, the boots and the radio show. So that actually goes against your notion that she named him.

Wait, I have to catch up, she wrote: "hosted a radio show called Real Talk with Jimbo." Doesn't that pretty much announce who it is? No. According to the Breitbart story you posted it never existed.

 

[pantagrapher]

My opinion is that the Republican part is one of the descriptions that was made up and Dunham and everyone else responsible for signing off on the book failed to understand how that could blow up in their face. Don't describe the guy as a Republican and keep everything else the same and there is no controversy.

I bet that if her supposed rapist was a Democrat she never would have mentioned it at all. She DELIBERATELY mentioned it for a reason - and that's to imply that Republicans are rapists because she's a far left nutjob.

I don't buy the innocent, deer-in-the-headlights reasoning. She and her publisher new exactly what they were doing.

Maybe she included it because she's a famous liberal and wanted to underscore how impaired she was.

She already details how she was on cocaine at the time, so she probably covered that.

Cocaine doesn't really impair you. If anything, it would mitigate the effect of the alcohol a bit.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

I haven't been following this thing very closely. I like Girls and think that Dunham is a talented writer. She also appears to be very self-absorbed and probably pretty annoying if you have to spend much time around her in real life. (I could easily be wrong about that; it's just the vibe I get. But I've never spent any time around her in real life to confirm it.)

I think you've correctly identified what she should have apologized for but did not. She should have taken extra precautions to make sure that nobody would mistake her pseudonym for a real name. She should have made it clearer that she was changing the details to make the identity of her attacker indiscernible. Her failure to do so was negligent, and she should have directly apologized to the real Barry for her mistake.

On the other hand, I think a lot of the criticism she's gotten for this has been off base. She made a mistake, but it appears to have been an innocent one -- caused by naivety and a lack of foresight, not caused by malice. (I guess it's possible that she had it out for the real Barry, but it seems rather unlikely if they'd never met.)

I'm not Barry, and he may have a different perspective, but from where I sit, Dunham's mistake seems pretty easy to forgive. It would even be easy to sympathize with, IMO, if only she seemed more genuinely sorry about it.

 

[Joe Summer]

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

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?

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?

Her description may seem specific, but it's actually pretty vague. He's "well known", but by what definition? Well known by the entire campus? Well known by her circle of friends? Well known by just one person? And is he "well known" for being a Republican, or is his political affiliation unknown to all except those he's intimate with? Without further details, I don't think it's accurate to say that the allegation is known to be false.

She literally named the guy.

No, she literally gave a first name and then literally added a disclaimer stating "some names and identifying details in the book have been changed". That's not the same as literally naming the guy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

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?

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?

Her description may seem specific, but it's actually pretty vague. He's "well known", but by what definition? Well known by the entire campus? Well known by her circle of friends? Well known by just one person? And is he "well known" for being a Republican, or is his political affiliation unknown to all except those he's intimate with? Without further details, I don't think it's accurate to say that the allegation is known to be false.

She literally named the guy.

No, she literally gave a first name and then literally added a disclaimer stating "some names and identifying details in the book have been changed". That's not the same as literally naming the guy.

Is it possible that aside from the incident itself all of the details - the name, the boots, that he hosted a radio show, that he was Republican, that he was conservative, that he was well-known, that he had a mustache, that he worked at the library - were false?

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

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

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?

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?

Her description may seem specific, but it's actually pretty vague. He's "well known", but by what definition? Well known by the entire campus? Well known by her circle of friends? Well known by just one person? And is he "well known" for being a Republican, or is his political affiliation unknown to all except those he's intimate with? Without further details, I don't think it's accurate to say that the allegation is known to be false.

She literally named the guy.

No, she literally gave a first name and then literally added a disclaimer stating "some names and identifying details in the book have been changed". That's not the same as literally naming the guy.

Is it possible that aside from the incident itself all of the details - the boots, that he hosted a radio show, that he was Republican, that he was conservative, that he was well-known, that he had a mustache, that he worked at the library - were false?

not only possible, highly likely in my opinion. what seems very unlikely is that you change the name and some identifying details in order for the person to be anonymous yet you actually keep any identifying details that are true.

 

[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)

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'm not a conservative, but I am directly familiar with clearances in entertainment. Trust me, if the editor skates, its only because they have friends willing to take a massive bullet.

Its a matter of a few simple questions on their behalf in the CYA world we live in. If I was giving the benefit of the doubt, I would guess they didn't pry on this due to the sensitive nature of the matter but it is their job to pry and make a determination on either noting it is a psedonym or making sure that this was an event was authentic.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

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?

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?

Her description may seem specific, but it's actually pretty vague. He's "well known", but by what definition? Well known by the entire campus? Well known by her circle of friends? Well known by just one person? And is he "well known" for being a Republican, or is his political affiliation unknown to all except those he's intimate with? Without further details, I don't think it's accurate to say that the allegation is known to be false.

She literally named the guy.

No, she literally gave a first name and then literally added a disclaimer stating "some names and identifying details in the book have been changed". That's not the same as literally naming the guy.

Is it possible that aside from the incident itself all of the details - the boots, that he hosted a radio show, that he was Republican, that he was conservative, that he was well-known, that he had a mustache, that he worked at the library - were false?

not only possible, highly likely in my opinion. what seems very unlikely is that you change the name and some identifying details in order for the person to be anonymous yet you actually keep any identifying details that are true.

Why provide any identifying details at all? For dramatic purposes? Because her readership would be liberal and the cowboy boots / talk radio / conservative aspects would appeal to their red meat mindsets?

 

[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.

I'm not a conservative, but I am directly familiar with clearances in entertainment. Trust me, if the editor skates, its only because they have friends willing to take a massive bullet.

Its a matter of a few simple questions on their behalf in the CYA world we live in. If I was giving the benefit of the doubt, I would guess they didn't pry on this due to the sensitive nature of the matter but it is their job to pry and make a determination on either noting it is a psedonym or making sure that this was an event was authentic.

If you're the editor and Dunham tells you that Barry is just a pseudonym, you have no responsibility to comb through Oberlin College records to find out if there happened to be a student named Barry.

 

[rockaction]

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

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?

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?

Her description may seem specific, but it's actually pretty vague. He's "well known", but by what definition? Well known by the entire campus? Well known by her circle of friends? Well known by just one person? And is he "well known" for being a Republican, or is his political affiliation unknown to all except those he's intimate with? Without further details, I don't think it's accurate to say that the allegation is known to be false.

She literally named the guy.

No, she literally gave a first name and then literally added a disclaimer stating "some names and identifying details in the book have been changed". That's not the same as literally naming the guy.

Is it possible that aside from the incident itself all of the details - the boots, that he hosted a radio show, that he was Republican, that he was conservative, that he was well-known, that he had a mustache, that he worked at the library - were false?

not only possible, highly likely in my opinion. what seems very unlikely is that you change the name and some identifying details in order for the person to be anonymous yet you actually keep any identifying details that are true.

Why provide any identifying details at all? For dramatic purposes? Because her readership would be liberal and the cowboy boots / talk radio / conservative aspects would appeal to their red meat mindsets?

Yeah, I know MT and IK are really thoughtful guys. But very few people who have been to very small, uber-liberal universities know what it's like to be identified as conservative or libertarian among the general inhabitants of said universities. I've had friends know I was against the drug war, a whole host of stuff, joke about my "fascism." I didn't like it. I think she knows what she did. I don't like it. I hope her ### gets sued badly.

eta* This is a person, who in her personal life, asked people to come to a barefoot high-school food party because she was a vegan and couldn't have leather in the house. This is from the NYT when she was sixteen. It was reported on. When she was sixteen. There's something up here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

I'm not a conservative, but I am directly familiar with clearances in entertainment. Trust me, if the editor skates, its only because they have friends willing to take a massive bullet.

Its a matter of a few simple questions on their behalf in the CYA world we live in. If I was giving the benefit of the doubt, I would guess they didn't pry on this due to the sensitive nature of the matter but it is their job to pry and make a determination on either noting it is a psedonym or making sure that this was an event was authentic.

If you're the editor and Dunham tells you that Barry is just a pseudonym, you have no responsibility to comb through Oberlin College records to find out if there happened to be a student named Barry.

However, isn't the editor and publisher obligated in an autobiography to ensure that the truth is being published?

When the editor was confronted with a popular, mustachioed, cowboy boot wearing, talk show talkin', conservative, Republican, librarian (read ie the nerdish, book-loving, technology hating luddite) bogey-man, well that was just too good to check, right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Maybe when she claimed a guy named Barry hosted a talk show called "Real Talk with Jimbo", that should have been a clue that she was embellishing just the teenciest wee bit. Maybe.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why provide any identifying details at all? For dramatic purposes? Because her readership would be liberal and the cowboy boots / talk radio / conservative aspects would appeal to their red meat mindsets?

Yeah, I know MT and IK are really thoughtful guys. But very few people who have been to very small, uber-liberal universities know what it's like to be identified as conservative or libertarian among the general inhabitants of said universities. I've had friends know I was against the drug war, a whole host of stuff, joke about my "fascism." I didn't like it. I think she knows what she did. I don't like it. I hope her ### gets sued badly.

eta* This is a person, who in her personal life, asked people to come to a barefoot high-school food party because she was a vegan and couldn't have leather in the house. This is from the NYT when she was sixteen. It was reported on. When she was sixteen. There's something up here.

Like I always say: if you were a weirdo when you were 16 and your parents are wealthy and semi-famous, you're probably lying about your sexual assault.

Seriously though: by providing irrelevant details about her life that you know some of this forum's readers will react negatively to, you're doing exactly what Saints (and I assume you, by your agreement with his post) accuse her of doing.

 

[tommyboy]

Maybe we can get tge cia to torture her

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

FTR, I think "I consent to have sex with you as long as you use a condom" is a valid position to take. So if someone surreptitiously removes a condom, that removes the consent. I dunno how the #### you could take the condom off without her knowing, but that's another discussion I guess.

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."

The closest analogy I can come to is a guy who lies about having a vasectimy. She only "consents" to sex bc she thought he couldn't get her pregnant. Is that rape if it turns out he lied?

What about lieing about not having an STD. If she shows up with the Clap a week later, was she raped?

It gets rediculous because you used the same standard for men, right? "She told me she was on the pill. I only consented to sex with the understanding she was on the pill. Therefore she raped me."

Lying to get a girl in bed is a time-honored tradition, but whether or not it constitutes rape or some other crime (or tort) clearly depends on the lie.

"Yes, this is my Porsche. I'm totally not just borrowing it from my dad."

[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]"I absolutely will wear a condom."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]"I can dunk a basketball off of two feet without a running start."[/SIZE]

"I will not leave immediately afterwards to go home and adjust my fantasy football lineup. I don't even play fantasy football!"

"I don't have any STDs."

"I love you."

And so on.

I think I have a hard time calling any of those things rape. If a woman consents, even if the consent was obtained by dishonest means, I'd call it something other than rape. That's not to say that it can't be battery or some other legally sanctionable offense. If you falsely state that you don't have AIDs, or even if you neglect to affirmatively disclose that you do have AIDs, I'm down with civil and criminal penalties for battery or whatever.

In any case, whether we call it rape or something else, I think it's clear that certain types of lies should remain legally (not to be confused with morally) okay, while other types of lies should be legally punishable, and there may be some interesting gray areas in trying to sort out which lies fall into which category.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Maybe we can get tge cia to torture her

The saddest thing about this is that not one person who reads it will be surprised that you posted it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

FTR, I think "I consent to have sex with you as long as you use a condom" is a valid position to take. So if someone surreptitiously removes a condom, that removes the consent. I dunno how the #### you could take the condom off without her knowing, but that's another discussion I guess.

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."

The closest analogy I can come to is a guy who lies about having a vasectimy. She only "consents" to sex bc she thought he couldn't get her pregnant. Is that rape if it turns out he lied?

What about lieing about not having an STD. If she shows up with the Clap a week later, was she raped?

It gets rediculous because you used the same standard for men, right? "She told me she was on the pill. I only consented to sex with the understanding she was on the pill. Therefore she raped me."

Lying to get a girl in bed is a time-honored tradition, but whether it constitute rape or some other crime (or tort) clearly depends on the lie.

"Yes, this is my Porsche. I'm totally not just borrowing it from my dad."

[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]"I absolutely will wear a condom."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14.4444446563721px]"I can dunk a basketball off of two feet without a running start."[/SIZE]

"I will not leave immediately afterwards to go home and adjust my fantasy football lineup. I don't even play fantasy football!"

"I don't have any STDs."

"I love you."

And so on.

I think I have a hard time calling any of those things rape. If a woman consents, even if the consent was obtained by dishonest means, I'd call it something other than rape. That's not to say that it can't be battery or some other legally sanctionable offense. If you falsely state that you don't have AIDs, or even if you neglect to affirmatively disclose that you do have AIDs, I'm down with civil and criminal penalties for battery or whatever.

In any case, whether we call it rape or something else, I think it's clear that certain types of lies should remain legally (not to be confused with morally) okay, while other types of lies should be legally punishable, and there may be some interesting gray areas in trying to sort out which lies fall into which category.

Obligatory.

 

[pantagrapher]

You can't prevent coincidences. That's why they're called coincidences.

 

[rockaction]

Why provide any identifying details at all? For dramatic purposes? Because her readership would be liberal and the cowboy boots / talk radio / conservative aspects would appeal to their red meat mindsets?

Yeah, I know MT and IK are really thoughtful guys. But very few people who have been to very small, uber-liberal universities know what it's like to be identified as conservative or libertarian among the general inhabitants of said universities. I've had friends know I was against the drug war, a whole host of stuff, joke about my "fascism." I didn't like it. I think she knows what she did. I don't like it. I hope her ### gets sued badly.

eta* This is a person, who in her personal life, asked people to come to a barefoot high-school food party because she was a vegan and couldn't have leather in the house. This is from the NYT when she was sixteen. It was reported on. When she was sixteen. There's something up here.

Like I always say: if you were a weirdo when you were 16 and your parents are wealthy and semi-famous, you're probably lying about your sexual assault.

Seriously though: by providing irrelevant details about her life that you know some of this forum's readers will react negatively to, you're doing exactly what Saints (and I assume you, by your agreement with his post) accuse her of doing.

No, I'm saying I don't like her. What I think is that her life of constant entitlement activism should give one pause about her claims, especially given the dubious literary and factual elements of her "memoir," her weird admission/non-admission within said text of playing fast and loose with facts, going so far as to pen a "memoir" that is a a non-memoir, a weird blend of activism and narrative over fact, and the willingness to use certain facts in real life to paint a picture of an assault that named/didn't name a particular person that did have/didn't have these characteristics.

What I'm saying is what other people have said better than me: You don't just accuse somebody of rape.

 

[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)

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'm not a conservative, but I am directly familiar with clearances in entertainment. Trust me, if the editor skates, its only because they have friends willing to take a massive bullet.

Its a matter of a few simple questions on their behalf in the CYA world we live in. If I was giving the benefit of the doubt, I would guess they didn't pry on this due to the sensitive nature of the matter but it is their job to pry and make a determination on either noting it is a psedonym or making sure that this was an event was authentic.

If you're the editor and Dunham tells you that Barry is just a pseudonym, you have no responsibility to comb through Oberlin College records to find out if there happened to be a student named Barry.

No, but if you're the editor, and there are specific citations of psedonyms in the book, and in this case, this particular passage is presented without that qualifier, you are there to say whether or not the pseduomym should be cited again or the name "Barry" should change.

 

[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.

I'm not a conservative, but I am directly familiar with clearances in entertainment. Trust me, if the editor skates, its only because they have friends willing to take a massive bullet.

Its a matter of a few simple questions on their behalf in the CYA world we live in. If I was giving the benefit of the doubt, I would guess they didn't pry on this due to the sensitive nature of the matter but it is their job to pry and make a determination on either noting it is a psedonym or making sure that this was an event was authentic.

If you're the editor and Dunham tells you that Barry is just a pseudonym, you have no responsibility to comb through Oberlin College records to find out if there happened to be a student named Barry.

No, but if you're the editor, and there are specific citations of psedonyms in the book, and in this case, this particular passage is presented without that qualifier, you are there to say whether or not the pseduomym should be cited again or the name "Barry" should change.

A copy editor should have made sure pseudonyms were noted consistently throughout. But this is pop memoir. That entire wing of the industry is exceedingly vapid. Their primary goal is to get their trash onto the shelves while the name on the cover is still hot.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

I'm not a conservative, but I am directly familiar with clearances in entertainment. Trust me, if the editor skates, its only because they have friends willing to take a massive bullet.

Its a matter of a few simple questions on their behalf in the CYA world we live in. If I was giving the benefit of the doubt, I would guess they didn't pry on this due to the sensitive nature of the matter but it is their job to pry and make a determination on either noting it is a psedonym or making sure that this was an event was authentic.

If you're the editor and Dunham tells you that Barry is just a pseudonym, you have no responsibility to comb through Oberlin College records to find out if there happened to be a student named Barry.

No, but if you're the editor, and there are specific citations of psedonyms in the book, and in this case, this particular passage is presented without that qualifier, you are there to say whether or not the pseduomym should be cited again or the name "Barry" should change.

A copy editor should have made sure pseudonyms were noted consistently throughout. But this is pop memoir. That entire wing of the industry is exceedingly vapid. Their primary goal is to get their trash onto the shelves while the name on the cover is still hot.

Well now you're on to something...