GIRLS talk (the Lena Dunham thread)

that exchange really made me laugh.

i guess when i mostly see this kind of thing discussed it has generally been in a reactionary anti-sex context (which accounts for my feeling that this show has stuff that a republican might dig) - ie: Caitlin Flanagan, kinda also Wendy Shalit, Mary Pipher, i'm sure some of these writers have handled it better than Flanagan (ugh), but is it possible to say you're concerned about this kind of dynamic, or that you think it's wrong, without being ridiculous and worried about the future of american female innocence? like maybe that's some of the tension - you want to acknowledge that this is common. both common, like, doesn't it suck how widespread and terrible this is? but also common like, it's also no big deal, don't panic over it. am i reading this correctly at all?

but is it possible to say you're concerned about this kind of dynamic, or that you think it's wrong, without being ridiculous and worried about the future of american female innocence?

i don't see where innocence comes into it at all? you're right, this is the kind of material flanagan mines in order to indict feminism for giving women too much freedom, but she's just wrong about what the problem is. (and an asshole) thinking the dude in that sex scene is a dick is not the same thing as thinking the dunham character should wait to have sex until she gets married so that this never happens to her, like wendy shalit would say, or whatever. that whole transfer of responsibility is kind of the whole problem with conservative rhetoric about sexual mores.

It should be a big deal, it should be WAY bigger than women who get subjected to it think it is. But it's horrible NOT because of female innocence for the love of little green cabbages, jesus christ. It's horrible because IT IS BASICALLY NORMAL CONDUCT for a lot of men, a looooot of perfectly nice men who are not in fact obvious douchebags or easily categorizable. It's just ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR IN THE CONTEXT OF CASUAL SEX, and that's the horrible part. Sex can be casual as all getout but why is the loudest narrative one in which both parties are not equally entitled to respect?

Did I say "loudest"? Because you can also substitute "only" there, if you want.

innocence is the paradigm that those conservative writers are working in - lost innocence, etc. obv bullshit + very condescending. xxp

but that's not the paradigm Dunham's working in. the sex scene is horrible not because her "innocence" has been destroyed, as Laurel points out so well.

just to clarify, i'm not sympathizing at all with the innocence narrative which is i think is really destructive + terrible. i was just pointing out that it is often the way that ppl like Flanagan discuss the issue. and i'm not claiming that Dunham is doing that either. i kinda feel like maybe i didn't adequately explain myself in the above post...

but certainly if Flanagan was going to make a gritty show about how casual sex culture is destroying America she might have a scene where a guy threatens not to wear a condom during sex and tries to initiate anal sex without consent, and another character has a loving boyfriend she hates, and another character has lots of casual sex and winds up unintentionally pregnant.

okay now you sound like Bruni

women shouldn't make culture that reflects their point of view and experiences because caitlin flanagan is an asshole?

i don't know how you got that from what i said. i don't know how you could possible get any opinion from me about whether they should make the show or not from what i said, especially since i've already said that i think the show is really well made and very interesting + provocative, and that part of its value is in bringing up these issues for me.

i dont see how the character who hates her bf can be used to argue that casual sex is destroying america, you could easily use that to argue that committed relationships are destroying america

i don't understand your point, Mordy

also we know next to nothing about the prego girl's situation at all at this point, a caitlin flanagan type could easily chastise this show for making it seem okay for a woman to get pregnant out of wedlock

she'd certainly find a way to chastise the show because she hates women, but i think mordy's right that she would use it as evidence of how feminism has ruined young women's lives. but that's because she has only one idea and she says it about everything.

why are we even talking about caitlin flanagan

did you guys know that caitlin flanagans husband is the president of the barbie division of mattel

we know that friend asked, "was it intentional?" and english girl said snarkily, "what do u think?"

i don't think the subtext of discussing this show needs to be 'should it be made or not?' i think that's pretty much the worst context to talk about this, or any piece of art or culture, and is not on my mind. xp to horseshoe

Sorry, I should point out that I haven't seen the show, I assume from slocki's post that the guy in the ep is actually her boyfriend and I probably shouldn't have used the term "casual sex" but I think there's a sense in which any sex you are having with someone who treats you poorly or disrespectfully is "casual"--they aren't valuing you and you aren't valuing yourself or insisting on anything better so how can that be beautiful or meaningful or intimate or whatever?

i think theres really common dynamic in your early/mid 20s where if you like someone more than they like you and you dont have the will or the sense of self or w/e to just stop wanting them or seeing them and so you just let yourself get treated worse than you should? and a lot of times you end up sleeping with this person that doesnt care about you or doesnt care enough like the sex in the pilot where their disinterest and your vulnerability make things really toxic

and like for straight guys i guess this dynamic rarely plays itself out during sex its more like the one girls clingy boyfriend instead but ive def been in situations and feel like its p common for that kind of emotional power inbalance to get ppl to have sex or types of sex they wouldnt choose for themselves in order to please. and i mean to hannahs credit shes asserts herself w/that guy even if she cant bring herself to stop wanting him

he isn't her boyfriend, at least teh way it's presented in that ep is that it's a bit of a friends with benefits sitch that she would like to turn into something more

lamp pretty otm

to clarify for laurel, we see two 'relationships' in the pilot, lena dunham + asshole non-boyfriend who has rapey casual sex and brian williams daughter + michael cera committed boyfriend who is too nice and clingy and makes williams jr cringe so she wont have sex with him

yeah that seems right; certainly a better frame for the scene than flanaganism

xxp about Lamp

also two other leads - virgin mamet character who identifies hard with satc, english cousin of mamet (i think?) who is pregnant and gives protagonist kinda shitty advice

and i mean continuing on i feel like in a lot of cultural products where the protagonist is neurotic or insecure or 'unattractive' its a male character who is suffering through this humiliation to get sex from a woman where sex is approval, closeness &c. and it was true and painfully but also funny to see a scene where a woman is using sex itself is the awkward and humiliating thing you need to do to get that approval, closeness. or not get it, which again feels p true to life.

yeah that's exactly the thing i appreciate about lena dunham's presence on the cultural scene, tbh. i feel like movie mythology about gender and desire is such that women (conventionally beautiful and graceful) are aloof objects for self-doubting men who pursue them for sex. women do get humiliated in those narratives but it's to different ends and a woman like dunham's character can't even exist in that world.

"lena", based on the pilot and the entire plot of tiny furniture, is a character who is done unto
she doesn't do much on her own and has figured out how to live in a space where things happen with minimal effort and without much aspiration
(dunno if anyone noticed but when she takes the housekeeping money, she seems to pointedly NOT take her copy of her memoirs when she leaves)
i don't get much of a sense that she has any clearly formed desires yet and that's intended i think as a commentary on the ennui and aimlessness of pampered early 20something millenialkinder
so her lack of sophistication/enjoyment from sex seems at least partially connected with that motif though it's a pretty incendiary way to make that point
thought maybe that IS the point? kinda?

i...don't know about that

I go to lunch and thread explodes. Laurel/Lamp otm x1000.

i dont think not taking her memoirs means anything, its a printout

its symbolism for the death of print media

also she's the one who initiates the hangout with the dude, she's the one who tries to turn her internship into a real job, i think she has plenty of agency and aspiration

also she actually wrote the memoir, regardless of whether she picks up the printout...

don't know if I hate america or girls more

also not sure the takeaway from the sex scene was that she needed to be more sophisticated.

show should have been called 'america' tbh

girls (w/ no names)

http://www.arismixtapes.com/catalog/images/WhiteAmericaOne.jpg

i dont think not taking her memoirs means anything, its a printout
― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki)

how to make it in girls

i didn't mean lack of sophistication of sex; meant lack of sophistication / enjoyment of sex
bad punctuation on my part

in the next episode an immigrant hotel maid steals the manuscript and becomes a best-selling author

(spoilers)

(jamaican accent)

i know i often write chapters of pages for a project i don't really care about at all.

^^ read that post in a jamaican accent

i like this show a lot

Everything Lamp is saying seems right. I think?