Your summary is inaccurate. It wasn't just the pebbles-in-vagina incident (incidentally, her sister was 1 at the time....yeah, I'm sure she put the pebbles in her own vagina). She also admitted to bribing her in order to kiss her (we call that "grooming" when a male does it), and masturbating while next to her in bed. Her sister was asleep, but still, ick, and that's all she's admitting to.
It was an accurate summary of the one incident Lena Dunham described of her inappropriately touching her younger sister, at age 7 out of curiosity. My stepmom, her brother, and another uncle are pediatricians; they've said you'd be stunned at the inordinate variety of things young children have stuffed in their own orifices. They talked about some of the more bizarre things their patients have consumed or place inside themselves, from a cockroach to crayons. If Lena had stuffed the pebbles inside her sister, it would have been more logical that she'd then try to remove them herself to avoid trouble rather than immediately calling for their mom to come help.
The majority of pediatricians, child psychologists, and rational and intelligent people of the world could also explain to you why a 7-year-old inappropriately touching a younger sibling in a burst of curiosity is diametrically different from an adolescent fondling multiple prepubescent siblings multiple times. Adolescent pedophilia is the sexual attraction by teens to prepubescent children who are at least three to five years younger, and is clinically and morally different from a prepubescent child inappropriately touching another prepubescent child out of curiosity in isolated incidents. Age is what is most critical. It's not uncommon for young children to be inquisitive about younger siblings and their peers and to "play doctor" or otherwise explore. That's not comparable to someone in adolescence inappropriately fondling a child he is nearly thrice the age of while she slept.
How does touching herself in the bed she shared with her sister, while her sister slept conceivably compare to sneaking into a bedroom and fondling girls while they slept? Her sister was the one who requested that she share the bed with her, which conveys the sense of trust and safety she felt. It's still obviously vile and narcissistic of Lena, but incomparable to child molestation. Characterizing the two actions as equal generates confusion and other potential problems that could actually further harm rather than protect victims of abuse. How does "bribing" her sister for a
kiss compare to a teenager molesting the genitals of a five-year-old in her sleep?
Oh, obviously Dunham was just joking. But hey, she's a woman, and a feminist darling. Obviously she deserves to be treated much more charitably than a man who admitted to doing the same things as her would be.
No. Her statements simply need to be considered within the context, just as anything you write should be as well. By the way, what do you mean by "disregard females; acquire currency"?
And Duggar's victims have "forgiven him". So what?
Where have his victims been indignant and enraged at the media portraying Josh's actions as child molestation when they believed it was entirely innocent? The victims haven't made any public statements. Their parents acknowledge that his actions were inexcusable and harmful to them. Do you think it's fair to them and to other victims of sexual abuse to say that their experiences are equal to Grace Dunhum's, when she's vigorously denied that she was victimized in any way? When in fact she's been far more distressed by the media labeling her as a victim? It's not just about Josh and Lena's actions that are relevant.
Nothing diversionary about it. I'm saying they're both abusive, and that the hypocrisy here is rather interesting. If you wonder why people aren't taking Duggar's abuse quite so seriously as you'd like, there's part of your answer. What I'm saying is we need some kind of consistency here.
Yes, it is diversionary. Many people were outraged and repulsed by Lena Dunham's book, fittingly, but consistency can only be expected when actions are commensurate and in this case no matter how much you want to try to make them so, they aren't.
Well, why would she need to hide it? People will make apologies for her, your post is a case in point.
I haven't made an apology for her, nor would I ever do so; I've explained why your comparisons are flawed and expressed annoyance that you've derailed another thread.
Again, there was more than the one incident between Lena and Grace Dunham, including incidents when Lena was a teenager - and if Lena Dunham was male, people would be flipping their collective lids over it. Particularly if he was a disliked conservative.
People did flip their collective lids over Lena Dunham's book. The reaction wasn't as proportion to Josh's, not just because of the diametric differences in their images, but again, because the actions weren't proportional. One involved sex offenses that are prosecutable by law, and the other was just a narcissistic freak.
Why should people take the Duggar case seriously, when it's ok to excuse Dunham's behaviour as "perfectly normal" when convenient? This hypocrisy has consequences.
Those involved in his life took his repeated actions of fondling children while he was a teenager over a course of time very seriously. His case has a 33 page police report with graphic details of him on repeated incidences. His parents evaded the police request to present him for questioning.
Lena Dunham, by comparison, wrote at the beginning of the book that she's an unreliable narrator and she's known for being a fabulist. Her own family has put the comments and incidents within the context and been offended and hurt that they were characterized as sexual abuse, whereas the Duggars acknowledged that their son's actions constituted child molestation.
- Have to state again. Not condoning Lena or her actions, then or now. Not viewing them as equivalent to Josh Duggar's doesn't equate to me viewing them as acceptable or being a fan of hers. They're not and I'm not.