Can't Make This Stuff Up

Posts : 6988

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2014/11/03/lena-dunham-threatens-to-sue-website-for-quoting-her-own-words-n1913664

Lena Dunham Threatens to Sue Website for Quoting Her Own Words

Christine Rousselle | Nov 03, 2014

I wrote yesterday about the public's uproar to actress Lena Dunham's admission in her memoir Not That Kind of Girl that she had behaved (in her words) similar to a "sexual predator" toward her younger sister, Grace, during their childhood. Now, Dunham has filed a cease-and-desist order against Truth Revolt, one of the websites that published excerpts from her book...for publishing excerpts from her book. Dunham's lawyers threatened over a million dollars in damages due toTruth Revolt's article.
From Truth Revolt:
On Saturday, HBO’s Lena Dunham sent a “cease and desist” letter to TruthRevolt demanding that we remove an article we posted last Wednesday on sections of her book, Not That Kind of Girl. The letter threatened legal action if we did not both remove that article, as well as print a note, the suggested language of which read as follows:
We recently published a story stating that Ms. Dunham engaged in sexual conduct with her sister. The story was false, and we deeply regret having printed it. We apologize to Ms. Dunham, her sister, and their parents, for this false story.
We refuse. We refuse to withdraw our story or apologize for running it, because quoting a woman’s book does not constitute a “false” story, even if she is a prominent actress and left-wing activist. Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book – and the First Amendment covers a good deal of material she may not like.
Truth Revolt then proceeded to quote the passages from the book that detailed Dunham's questionable behavior toward her sister, which included opening her one-year-old sister's vagina when she was seven, bribing her sister with candy and money for kisses on the lips, dressing her sister as a "motorcycle chick", and masturbating in the same bed as her 11-year-old sister when she was 17.
Dunham accused the "right wing" of twisting her words, despite literally referring to herself as acting like a sexual predator in her book.
While I may not be a lawyer, I am not entirely certain how a lawsuit against someone for quoting your own work in context is legally feasible. As many have pointed out, Dunham led a relatively privileged life with extremely liberal parents who practiced an extremely liberal parenting strategy. While it's quite possible that Dunham truly believes her behavior was perfectly normal, frankly, it wasn't. Dunham has canceled part of her book tour, reportedly to spend more time with her sister.
I think Jason Mattera sums up this whole situation well:
If you don't want to be compared to a sexual predator, then, er, don't compare yourself to one.

Posts : 1165

Quote :: Can't Make This Stuff Up

I beg to differ, the right makes up stuff all the time, it's nothing new. This is an excellent example.
Context is everything.

Lena Dunham Defends Herself After Being Accused of Molesting Her Sister

Lena Dunham is fighting back at critics who accused her of molesting her younger sister based on a story in her book, Not That Kind of Girl.

The excerpt in question:

"One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn't resist and when I saw what was inside I shrieked."

"My mother came running. 'Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!' "

"My mother didn't bother asking why I had opened Grace's vagina. This was within the spectrum of things I did. She just on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been a success."

After the politically conservative site Truth Revolt alleged she had abused her sister, Dunham, 28, took to Twitter.

"The right wing news story that I molested my little sister isn't just LOL – it's really f------ upsetting and disgusting," she wrote.

"Usually this is stuff I can ignore but don't demean sufferers, don't twist words," she continued. "I told a story about being a weird seven year old. I bet you have some too …"

One person who's apparently taking the situation in stride: Dunham's sister. In her final Tweet, Dunham wrote, "I wish my sister wasn't laughing so hard."

http://www.people.com/article/lena-dunham-molestation-accusations-twitter

Lena Dunham: Sexual abuse or sexual exploration?
In the world of sexual behavior, experts says it's not unusual.

"This type of touching and exploration is relatively common," says Debby Hebernick, associate professor in Indiana University's School of Public Health and author of Sex Made Easy. "It's common for young children to explore their own bodies and even those of friends or siblings in this way. That doesn't mean it's OK. And it's just as common for parents, teachers and caregivers to set boundaries and to teach children what's OK and what's not OK."

Hebernick didn't consider Dunham's passages titillating. . "There's not even anything sexual here," she says. "This is touching of the genitals. And the way the vast majority of times that children and adults touch their genitals has nothing to do with sex."

The American Academy of Pediatrics says parents should expect touching to happen. HealthyChildren.org, overseen by the Academy, writes in its Ages and Stages guidelines that at 4 to 5 years of age a child might show an interest in touching "her own genitals and may even show an interest in the genitals of other children."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/11/06/lena-dunam-sexual-abuse-sister-grace-exploration-lawsuit/18524915/

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: I beg to differ, the right makes up stuff all the time, it's nothing new. This is an excellent example.
Context is everything.

It’s kind of odd to accuse someone of making stuff up when they are referencing direct quotes from a book.
I think that if Ms. Dunham had not wanted her 'adventures' to be made public, she would have been best served by not going out of her way to write about them and publish them in the first place, rather than to sue, after the fact, those who are quoting what she wrote.

Posts : 1165

Here's what is made up:
"Lena Dunham Describes Sexually Abusing Her Little Sister"
That's a lie.
Now please show me the quote where she says, "I abused my little sister."

Posts : 3520

I'd imagine if it really was about "quoting her work", it'd be a copyright lawsuit, which means both headlines are false.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: Now please show me the quote where she says, "I abused my little sister."

It’s not a matter of what she says - it’s a matter of what she did.
I haven’t come across any direct quotes from Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, or a host of Catholic priests concerning their actions, either, but hey …. we know how those turned out, don't we?

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: Now please show me the quote where she says, "I abused my little sister."

It’s not a matter of what she says - it’s a matter of what she did.

And what she did is normal. Any ~~moron~~ educated person knows that.
Just for you jack:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/why-children-explore-their-bodies.html

Comparing Woody Allen and Roman Polanski to a 7 year old is beyond idiotic.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: Now please show me the quote where she says, "I abused my little sister."

It’s not a matter of what she says - it’s a matter of what she did.

And what she did is normal. Any ~~moron~~ educated person knows that.
Just for you jack:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/why-children-explore-their-bodies.html

Comparing Woody Allen and Roman Polanski to a 7 year old is beyond idiotic.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/11/04/lena-dunham-apologizes-sexual-abuse-controversy-sister-molestation/#

She also shared that at age 7, she examined her sister’s vagina out of curiosity, and she even spoke about masturbating at 17-years-old while her sister was in bed with her.

Masturbating while in bed with a prepubescent child?
Nice.
If you consider having a near-adult masturbating in bed next to a child to be "normal" activity, then I feel very fucking sorry for the people who grew up in your household.

Posts : 3520

Yes, you absolutely can make that shit up:

Quote :

Most of the analysis of Dunham's account of her childhood behavior has been coming from amateurs, mostly with axes to grind. I thought, then, it might be useful to add an expert opinion into this stew of non-professional opinions about whether the incidents Dunham describes—examining her sister's vagina, plying her sister with candy, and slipping her hand into her own "underwear to figure some stuff out" while lying next to her sister—constituted abuse.

I asked Sam Rubenstein, a psychotherapist who specializes in childhood abuse, for his take on whether what Dunham describes would be considered abuse in a clinical setting.

The short answer is: no. The longer answer, from his responses to my questions over the phone, is below:

Quote :: If I had a quarter for every kid in that age demographic that touched somebody else out of curiosity, I'd be a rich man. I think that's a natural part of development and curiosity. There's no sense of control or shame or harm [in Dunham's writing]. It would be really hard to construe it that way.

I think you have to take into consideration her age, her history, and the idea that at that age, unless you've gone through severe sexual trauma, there's really almost nothing sexual about it. The same explanation could be used for grabbing the dog's tail. It's the same type of coercion. Just because it's in the sexual venue, people want to attach something to it, but it's almost totally different. It's an innocent type of thing.

On the "masturbation": That doesn't even sound like masturbation. It just sounds like a curiosity type thing. Whatever her reason is, it seems like somebody's making a bigger to do about it than what really is. There's a difference between masturbation and figuring out what's going on in your own body down there.

I remember, I made my brother touch like, hot shit or made him eat dog food. Are those things abusive? Yes, but not in the context of a 7-year-old and a 5-year-old. I think context is a huge issue here. If you want to get very psychological, in Freud's psychosexual stages, [Dunham's age] is consistent with the latency stage, wherein children of that age are almost de-genenderized and desexualized. That's even more evidence of why there would be no sexual connotation to it.

Can't Make This Stuff Up Yawn_zpsctep2fzw

Human sexuality doesn't exist in the real world like it does in the Bible, which is why I'm assuming conservatives are so fucking confused and sometimes terrified by it. But it always entertaining to see the "we're not scientists" conservative media is, apparently, experts on yet another topic not global warming, actual science and scientists be damned.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

Yes, you absolutely can make that shit up:

Quote :

Most of the analysis of Dunham's account of her childhood behavior has been coming from amateurs, mostly with axes to grind. I thought, then, it might be useful to add an expert opinion into this stew of non-professional opinions about whether the incidents Dunham describes—examining her sister's vagina, plying her sister with candy, and slipping her hand into her own "underwear to figure some stuff out" while lying next to her sister—constituted abuse.

I asked Sam Rubenstein, a psychotherapist who specializes in childhood abuse, for his take on whether what Dunham describes would be considered abuse in a clinical setting.

The short answer is: no. The longer answer, from his responses to my questions over the phone, is below:

Quote :: If I had a quarter for every kid in that age demographic that touched somebody else out of curiosity, I'd be a rich man. I think that's a natural part of development and curiosity. There's no sense of control or shame or harm [in Dunham's writing]. It would be really hard to construe it that way.

I think you have to take into consideration her age, her history, and the idea that at that age, unless you've gone through severe sexual trauma, there's really almost nothing sexual about it. The same explanation could be used for grabbing the dog's tail. It's the same type of coercion. Just because it's in the sexual venue, people want to attach something to it, but it's almost totally different. It's an innocent type of thing.

On the "masturbation": That doesn't even sound like masturbation. It just sounds like a curiosity type thing. Whatever her reason is, it seems like somebody's making a bigger to do about it than what really is. There's a difference between masturbation and figuring out what's going on in your own body down there.

I remember, I made my brother touch like, hot shit or made him eat dog food. Are those things abusive? Yes, but not in the context of a 7-year-old and a 5-year-old. I think context is a huge issue here. If you want to get very psychological, in Freud's psychosexual stages, [Dunham's age] is consistent with the latency stage, wherein children of that age are almost de-genenderized and desexualized. That's even more evidence of why there would be no sexual connotation to it.

Human sexuality doesn't exist in the real world like it does in the Bible, which is why I'm assuming conservatives are so fucking confused and sometimes terrified by it. But it always entertaining to see the "we're not scientists" conservative media is, apparently, experts on yet another topic not global warming, actual science and scientists be damned.

I agree that the events when she was 7 years old should be of no concern, but ….

There's a difference between masturbation and figuring out what's going on in your own body down there.

…. when you are seventeen, you know good and well “what's going on in your own body down there”, and you should know better than to share that in bed with a prepubescent child. To pretend otherwise is utter bullshit.

Posts : 1165

As usual jack makes up shit and doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Here's what is in the book:

“I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old,” Dunham wrote in Not That Kind of Girl. “She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me... Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out.”

Tell us jack, where exactly is masturbation mentioned?

Jack, see how full of shit you are?
Don't you ever get embarrassed?....?....guess not.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: As usual jack makes up shit and doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Here's what is in the book:

“I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old,” Dunham wrote in Not That Kind of Girl. “She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me... Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out.”

Tell us jack, where exactly is masturbation mentioned?

Jack, see how full of shit you are?
Don't you ever get embarrassed?....?....guess not.

By the age of seventeen, no one needs to “figure some stuff out” in their underwear – they’ve had it well figured for a long time by then.
It’s abundantly clear to anyone except those in deep denial precisely why she had her hand in her underwear. And as if that’s not enough, the prose she uses ….

“…. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me ….”

…. sounds like a bad porn novel, or a Penthouse letter to the editor.
But that’s "normal", in your book.
Creepier than shit, in my book.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: “…. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me ….”

…. sounds like a bad porn novel, or a Penthouse letter to the editor.
But that’s "normal", in your book.
Creepier than shit, in my book.

Sounds like your literary appreciation never evolved much past "Dick & Jane" did it?

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: By the age of seventeen, no one needs to “figure some stuff out” in their underwear – they’ve had it well figured for a long time by then.

So you're going double down on your ignorance and cluelessness?
Like said you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

Quote :: On the "masturbation": That doesn't even sound like masturbation. It just sounds like a curiosity type thing. Whatever her reason is, it seems like somebody's making a bigger to do about it than what really is. There's a difference between masturbation and figuring out what's going on in your own body down there.

Quote :: For both sexes, the likelihood of engaging in masturbation appeared to increase with age. Among boys between the ages of 14 and 17 the percentage of those who had masturbated at least once rose from about 63 to 80 percent. Among girls, those figures were lower but still followed an upward slope, rising from about 43 percent to 58 percent across the same time-frame, according to the report.
http://consumer.healthday.com/women-s-health-information-34/abortion-news-2/study-tracks-masturbation-trends-among-u-s-teens-655445.html

No jack, not everybody has "it well figured for a long time by then" like you claim.
But I'm sure you did, it's why you're projecting.

Quote :: It’s abundantly clear to anyone except those in deep denial precisely why. But that’s "normal", in your book.

My book?...LOL. Well no it's not my "book."
Heretic and I have already pointed out that it's normal according to educated people like doctors, psychotherapists, experts in human sexuality and child psychologists.
Stupid, misinformed people just simply hand wave it away which is what your doing.

Your idiotic argument is:
"I'm right and everybody else is wrong."

It's abundantly clear jack, you're a 19th century moron when it comes to human sexuality.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: By the age of seventeen, no one needs to “figure some stuff out” in their underwear – they’ve had it well figured for a long time by then.

So you're going double down on your ignorance and cluelessness?
Like said you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

Quote :: On the "masturbation": That doesn't even sound like masturbation. It just sounds like a curiosity type thing. Whatever her reason is, it seems like somebody's making a bigger to do about it than what really is. There's a difference between masturbation and figuring out what's going on in your own body down there.

Quote :: For both sexes, the likelihood of engaging in masturbation appeared to increase with age. Among boys between the ages of 14 and 17 the percentage of those who had masturbated at least once rose from about 63 to 80 percent. Among girls, those figures were lower but still followed an upward slope, rising from about 43 percent to 58 percent across the same time-frame, according to the report.
http://consumer.healthday.com/women-s-health-information-34/abortion-news-2/study-tracks-masturbation-trends-among-u-s-teens-655445.html

No jack, not everybody has "it well figured for a long time by then" like you claim.
But I'm sure you did, it's why you're projecting.

Quote :: It’s abundantly clear to anyone except those in deep denial precisely why. But that’s "normal", in your book.

My book?...LOL. Well no it's not my "book."
Heretic and I have already pointed out that it's normal according to educated people like doctors, psychotherapists, experts in human sexuality and child psychologists.
Stupid, misinformed people just simply hand wave it away which is what your doing.

Your idiotic argument is:
"I'm right and everybody else is wrong."

It's abundantly clear jack, you're a 19th century moron when it comes to human sexuality.

Can you cite any studies from your “educated people” claiming that it is normal for a virtual adult to masturbate in the same bed as a child?

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: Sounds like your literary appreciation never evolved much past "Dick & Jane" did it?

To the contrary, it is precisely because my literary appreciation has evolved past Dick and Jane that I am able to identify crap writing the second I see it.
Sounds like your personality never evolved much past Dick, did it?

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: Can you cite any studies from your “educated people” claiming that it is normal for a virtual adult to masturbate in the same bed as a child?

I'll get back to as soon as you can prove that a "virtual adult masturbated in the same bed as a child."

Meanwhile you can just keep on projecting and looking like a complete fool.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Sounds like your literary appreciation never evolved much past "Dick & Jane" did it?

To the contrary, it is precisely because my literary appreciation has evolved past Dick and Jane that I am able to identify crap writing the second I see it.
it.

Yep, must be why Ms Dunham was nominated for a primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series.
Everybody is wrong and child psychiatrist/literary genius jack is right.... again. Can't Make This Stuff Up Rolling

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: Yep, must be why Ms Dunham was nominated for a primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series.

Apparently, if a panel of people you've never met, people whom you know nothing about, tells you that this is outstanding writing ....

“…. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me ….”

.... then you reflexively agree that it is outstanding writing.

When you begin to actually think for yourself, let me know.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: Yep, must be why Ms Dunham was nominated for a primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series.

Apparently, if a panel of people you've never met, people whom you know nothing about, tells you that this is outstanding writing ....

“…. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me ….”

.... then you reflexively agree that it is outstanding writing.

When you begin to actually think for yourself, let me know.

Oh dear.
Perhaps our literary genius should try reading this again and pay attention to the red part:

Ms Dunham was nominated for a primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series.

Did the light bulb go on yet?
And where did I say I agree with the part you're fixated on? ....just pointing out some facts jack.
Point is some people think she's a pretty good writer and what you think is very irrelevant.

it's a shame it all went over your head.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: Yep, must be why Ms Dunham was nominated for a primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series.

Apparently, if a panel of people you've never met, people whom you know nothing about, tells you that this is outstanding writing ....

“…. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me ….”

[b].... then you reflexively agree that it is outstanding writing.

Those "people" consist of experts in the profession of comedy writing.

Quote :: When you begin to actually think for yourself, let me know.

And therein lies your problem,and it is why you continuously play the role of board stooge...."Thinking for yourself" while ignoring experts in their fields.

Posts : 1165

Artie60438 wrote:: And therein lies your problem,and it is why you continuously play the role of board stooge...."Thinking for yourself" while ignoring experts in their fields.

Actually he's just doing what conservatives do best, mindlessly parroting right wing garbage.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: Those "people" consist of experts in the profession of comedy writing.

Yes, the experts whose superb taste in writing kept Shakespearean epics such as Three's Company and Married .... with Children on the air for God knows how many years.

Artie60438 wrote:: And therein lies your problem...."Thinking for yourself" ....

Why not try it sometime, perhaps on a day when the Daily Kos website is down for maintenance?

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Those "people" consist of experts in the profession of comedy writing.

Yes, the experts whose superb taste in writing kept Shakespearean epics such as Three's Company and Married .... with Children on the air for God knows how many years.

Anybody with a functioning brain knows that ratings determine whether a TV show stays on the air or not. The folks who hand out the Emmys, The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences have nothing to do with it.

Even Al Bundy knows that.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Those "people" consist of experts in the profession of comedy writing.

Yes, the experts whose superb taste in writing kept Shakespearean epics such as Three's Company and Married .... with Children on the air for God knows how many years.

Anybody with a functioning brain knows that ratings determine whether a TV show stays on the air or not. The folks who hand out the Emmys, The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences have nothing to do with it.

Even Al Bundy knows that.

Yeah, I’m aware of that. However, both Ms. Dunham and Three’s Company were nominated by and judged to be “outstanding” by the same institution. What does that tell you about the taste and discretion of those making the judgments? To receive an Emmy award after a show as insipid as Three’s Company has received the same award commands about as much respect as the Nobel Peace Prize does after it had been awarded to Barry, who did absolutely nothing to deserve it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075596/awards

Primetime Emmy Awards 1978
Nominated
Primetime Emmy
Outstanding Comedy Series
Don Nicholl (producer)
Michael Ross (producer)
Bernard West (producer)