C/D LENA DUNHAM (THE DEFINITIVE POLL)

fwiw:

Grace Dunham @simongdunham · 5m 5 minutes ago

As a queer person: i'm committed to people narrating their own experiences, determining for themselves what has and has not been harmful
0 replies 4 retweets 22 favorites
Grace Dunham @simongdunham · 9m 9 minutes ago

heteronormativity deems certain behaviours harmful, and others "normal"; the state and media are always invested in maintaining that
0 replies 8 retweets 26 favorites

I think it's possible to agree with that and still be a little grossed out by Lena about this though.

such a shitty explanation. you consider someone an extension of yourself and think you can do anything you want with them and their life as you would with your own body and life? GET HELP, ASSHOLE xp

She sounds like she is actually a narcissist, like in the pathological sense.

the assertion that decrying abuse is heteronormative, and the idea that abusive behaviors should be defined by the amount of harm done according to the survivor - both fucked up imo

I'm p much against calling a 7yo exploring an infant's body "predatory" or "abuse" - it's definitely sort of weird and not appropriate but kids that age are weird and inappropriate. I blame her parents.

her public persona is absolutely one of a "hilariously" oblivious narcissist. that's the joke.

something weird about how she seems to embody both the most negative and positive stereotypes about millenials

I'm sure a lot of the right wing backlash is being generated by the slightly ambiguous rape story in the book. Right wing dudes are like bloodhounds for anything that looks remotely like a "false rape accusation." Also I believe the perp is a "campus Republican."

this could be no big deal to Grace, but behavior that's normal-ish between siblings doesn't mean that it's acceptable as behavior. people normalize all kinds of shit.

The scene in which she actually looks at her sister's vagina is pretty innocuous, it's really the other stuff combined with that that is more eyebrow raising.

Masturbated next to her,

wait don't we have a thread about this

I'm just baffled that a seven-year-old could be construed as being semantically capable of sexual abuse.

its the combo of stuff thats alarming, although putting your fingers in an infants vagina is imo in and of itself alarming/red flag and it was p bad parenting to not question why it happened (which she explicitly states her mom did not do and just removed the pebbles from grace's vagina silently). its just a disturbing-weird story told as if its a quirky-weird story which compounds the disturbing quality

young kids absolutely sexually abuse younger/other kids

i haven't read what she wrote but idk what sort of tone you should take when you talk about something horrible + taboo you did to someone else when you weren't old enough to fully understand what you were doing

or should you just not ever talk about it to anyone?

i feel like this could as easily be innocuous as it could be abusive, idk. my understanding was kids sometimes do this shit?

maybe not the tone of a cute anecdote xp

yeah I don't think that a) Lena's actions were motivated by sexual gratification and b) why they may have not been in the infant's best interests it didn't cause her any mental or physical harm so "sexual abuse" seems like an extreme label

i don't think she thinks it was OK of her to see her sister as an extension of herself. i also don't think she is "bragging" about anything wtf. i think she seems reflective, even if she isn't writing it in this overtly apologetic way.

don't disagree that children can sexually abuse other children, and i wouldn't by any means be causal or dismissive about this sort of thing if it happened between children entrusted to my care. but lena's modus operandi is transparent, confessional writing so obviously she is going to share stuff that makes her look awful. that's the point of her art. it seems unfair to seize upon it, as if she is an especially awful person rather than just an especially honest one.

kids do sometimes do this shit and they need to learn that its fucked up or they are going to grow up continuing to violate boundaries - like outing people against their will and failing to see them as autonomous people

i work with 4 year olds and they understand body boundaries and know that you don't pry open other people's vaginas

feel the need to make it clear this never happened to me, ha, but i feel like her callous retelling of the story/treating people around her she supposedly cares about as material for her 'art' could easily be the more messed up thing about this situation...im not up on the latest child psych or anything but

thats another "thats so lena" thing she addresses in her art

I'm still more nauseated by the angry sexist garbage directed at Lena Dunham than anything she writes

(not by ppl in this conversation to be clear)

i work with 4 year olds and they understand body boundaries and know that you don't pry open other people's vaginas

yeah this is true, kids learn their boundaries about theirs and others bodies pretty early. I just don't think Lena's violation of this boundary was sexually motivated, more a simple extension of her larger "I have no boundaries" narcissism bullshit.

im grossed out by both. one doesnt have to outweigh the other. fucked up shit is fucked up shit

yeah it's gross. if I was her parent there would have been a very stern talking-to/punishment administered

also i think "keep it private" is a good tactic for very personal anecdotes -- but that is my personal opinion and clearly lena d (and lots of other people ) disagree

but lena's modus operandi is transparent, confessional writing so obviously she is going to share stuff that makes her look awful. that's the point of her art. it seems unfair to seize upon it, as if she is an especially awful person rather than just an especially honest one.

it's exactly this sort of justification that most irritates me. just because your artistic MO is to be an awful person doesn't make you any less awful or excuse your behaviour! and "honesty" is pure get-out clause

Sometimes there is a reason an artistic MO has not previously been employed all that much/successfully.

we're friends with a couple who are kind of 'transparent' in this same way and i sense it's a real ego trip for them (and ppl like them i think) to lay it all out there, confessional, 100% unfiltered style. 'aren't we shocking and fascinating' etc. i think it's a subconscious thing though.

actually i know other people like that too. they're generally the sorts who always hang around like they're posing for a promo teaser poster for a basic cable drama's upcoming third season.

Sometimes there is a reason an artistic MO has not previously been employed all that much/successfully.

there's a word for these people

baby boomers

or at least, the trend toward super confessional writing started in the 60s i think. dunham isn't doing anything new.

Yeah but it's the #nofilter thing that sets her apart, combined with the equally unserious way she treats almost every subject.

xp it is totally an ego trip but good writing has come out of it too. to enforce a "keep it private" standard, even through social censure, seems like it would be problematic.

also is she an "awful person" because of this thing she did or because of her method of talking about it as an adult? is it possible to be an awful person at 7 years old? also, whatever boundary issues she had then, are they related to the boundary issues she has now?

yeah it's gross. if I was her parent there would have been a very stern talking-to/punishment administered

― Οὖτις, Monday, November 3, 2014 12:51 PM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

to be fair then she might have grown up to be a lawyer instead of a critically acclaimed millionaire media mogul and auteur, so pick your battles

is it possible to be an awful person at 7 years old?

yes. unfortunately.

also is she an "awful person" because of this thing she did or because of her method of talking about it as an adult?
the flippant way with which she refers to her serious (at least according to some, me included) intrusions on her sister's body / personal space / personal life are pretty awful to the uninitiated observer / person who doesn't buy into her narcissism as genius thing.

the act of the child was an invasion that should have been dealt with by her parents, but i don't believe it makes her a sexual predator or whatever. i also don't think you should excuse it because it was somehow a brick in the foundation of her as a comedy persona. stuff like this could have been profoundly damaging to her sister (and perhaps was in ways that can't be appropriately gauged) who is a human being with her own rights to her body.

*is pretty awful.

agree with the second part of your statement of course. i don't agree that it was a "flippant' characterization, necessarily. i don't think her show is flippant either.

I guess I should buy this book, at least.

also lots of people read this book and nobody was talking about this section until the fucking national review decided to use it to defame her, who they hate because she identifies as a feminist.

if you're tempted to defend her (just) because she's become another rightwing culture war hate object -- don't

well a lot of the people who buy the book probably buy the 'confessional truth makes everything ok' vibe xp

kevin williamson and ben shapiro have a line in constant miserable cruelty. it would have and could have been anybody.

xp to TS - yeah, flippant was my word given my interpretation of what i read and my admittedly limited exposure to her work.

and i didn't mean you explicitly in the second point, that was mostly a reaction to the notion upthread that if her parents had intervened on her freedom as a child that she wouldn't have become who she is

yeah, i was just fuckin around

obv it's better to be a happy lawyer than a sad celebrity