Kinja reply list

Read More
Max Rivlin-NadlerJ.K. Trotter
12/30/14 6:23pm
I'm having a rough time seeing the necessity of this article. Is it to ferret out the identity of someone Dunham has gone through serious pains to disguise? Or is it to refute conservatives who believe she made it up? Or is it just doing an investigation to lay out the facts, because that's good gossip-oriented journalism?

Essentially, I see your argument as: It's irresponsible to name possible rapists. Here's one I'm naming! Might not be true! Who knows! Not me! Couldn't get a person to admit to being related to someone who raped someone in 2007.

If you wouldn't mind elaborating on the necessity of this piece, that would be great. If you're throwing shit to see what sticks, then that's evident. But if it's deeper... yeah. Some Kinja would be nice.
Reply
- Read More
  J.K. TrotterMax Rivlin-Nadler
  12/30/14 7:03pm
  I think the article is clearly, though carefully, framed to “refute conservatives who believe she made it up.” It’s become conventional wisdom in right-wing spheres that Dunham simply lied about being raped; that she invented her rapist; and that her various responses to these assertions merely confirm them. Why would we withhold evidence directly contradicting that? Gawker is supposed to gather and tell the story behind the story—especially if it’s one that other outlets won’t or can’t tell.
  
  I strongly disagree with your second paragraph. Unless you’re referring to the “Barry” episode—in which Dunham accidentally used a former classmate’s uncommon name—there’s a huge difference between “naming a possible rapist” (and for what reason? in what context?) and “naming the person clearly identified as a possible rapist in a widely-circulated text authored by a public figure (whose allegations of rape are currently under withering scrutiny).” It’s quite clear that we did the latter, not the former.
  
  As for “Might be true! Who knows! Not me!”: We explicitly say that we do not know whether Ungar actually raped Dunham, but we also explicitly say that the particulars of her assailant’s biography—in a detailed proposal for a non-fiction book—clearly point to him. We gave both Ungar and Dunham numerous opportunities to dispute this fairly obvious interpretation; neither did. In other words, it wasn’t that we “couldn’t find a person to admit to being related to someone who raped someone in 2007”—it was that two parties, both with plausible interests in not having this article published, declined to challenge any detail of it.
  
  All of that said, I really don’t want to suggest that this article is above criticism; that would be a particularly unhealthy attitude given the subject matter. But if we’re going to wrestle with the question you’re asking—the question of whether this article was necessary—it’s very much worth clarifying what we actually published, and why.
  Reply
- Read More
  Max Rivlin-NadlerJ.K. Trotter
  12/30/14 7:43pm
  Thanks for the response. I agree that the article starts off framing the argument as summarizing and refuting the conservative narrative, but by the end it partakes in the very same type of matching a memoir to a real person (no matter how seemingly credible) as Breitbart attempted. In writing her book proposal, it's very possible that Dunham could have altered the names and characteristics or conflated characters to begin with. It's not uncommon for a writer to think one veil is enough, only to be told by their publishing house's lawyer that they need to change it even more thoroughly. This could even explain the whole Barry episode, where they had gotten so far off the path they couldn't see that they were close to describing a real person who had nothing to do with anything. So on that account — that the proposal is a more accurate record than the finished book, I really would have doubts. Or enough doubts to avoid pulling the exact same thing Breitbart did.
  
  Also, Unger and Dunham's refusal to speak out for the article doesn't constitute admission that the article is correct, simply that neither wanted to speak. There are many, many reasons for someone not to comment (and in the case of Dunham, her dislike of Gawker is well-documented).
  
  But I definitely hear you about refuting the conservative narrative. I just don't know what this did to stand above that type of inquiry.
  Reply
Read More
Stan SmithJ.K. Trotter
12/30/14 5:14pm
Can someone please post the rape accusation? I haven't read the book and have no plans to but everything that was posted here describes a crappy night of sex that she regretted later on. Yea the whole "I put the condom off, psych" move is a total douche move but that does not constitute rape. So I'm assuming there is a passage that wasn't put here. Would someone be kind enough to link to it or paraphrase? Thanks!
Reply
- Read More
  DontBeSuchaBoobPunchTinaStan Smith
  12/30/14 5:38pm
  I confess to some curiosity, too. It's why I clicked on the piece. But a relevant excerpt doesn't appear to be in here. Unless they're seriously talking about the sneak removal of the condom? I'd be furious about that, but it doesn't negate having consented to the intercourse itself.
  
  Exposure without one's knowledge to potential diseases and/or pregnancy is a very different kind of violation from rape.
  
  A boyfriend cheated on me once, continuing to sleep with me while also sleeping with his new girlfriend (who knew nothing about me; nice girl actually).
  
  On finding out, and of course dumping him, I did the whole battery of tests, waited six months and got the HIV and Hep C ones again, and I hated him for making me go through that - and would have hated him even more had he given me anything, but I got lucky there - but I never, never would have said that the disgusting sonofabitch raped me.
  
  'Cause he didn't.
  Reply
- Read More
  the actual bajmahalDontBeSuchaBoobPunchTina
  12/30/14 8:42pm
  Thank you! I came here to ask that exact same question. Non-consensual sex is rape. Lying about the accoutrements that will accompany a given consensual sex act is fraud, not rape — fraud. A man lying about a condom or a woman lying about being on the pill is committing fraud. They're not rapists. This whole thing is stupid.
  Reply
Read More
RussianistJ.K. Trotter
12/30/14 4:51pm
Team No-One here. That includes Gawker.
Reply
- Read More
  Tyrion's Beetle ChatRussianist
  12/30/14 5:11pm
  Team Nuclear War.
  Reply
- Read More
  teninchnailsRussianist
  12/30/14 5:13pm
  this story does seem like a three way dunham v. conservative media v. liberal media moron contest.
  Reply
Read More
TheSingularityForRealJ.K. Trotter
12/30/14 4:55pm
Why is it presented as though only conservatives are out to get her? She's vulgar, narcissistic, makes up stories James Frey-style to garner attention which sometimes (understandably) backfire, is a complete dullard, and generally a hideous person in every way imaginable... I'm pretty sure people other than conservatives are repelled by her.
Reply
- Read More
  TheonGreycommentJoyTheSingularityForReal
  12/30/14 4:59pm
  A narcissist who is an actor and writer? That has to be the first time that's ever happened.
  Reply
- Read More
  JustAnotherSnowflakeTheSingularityForReal
  12/30/14 5:10pm
  Tuning in for the new season of Girls?
  Reply
Read More
MiloMinderbenderJ.K. Trotter
12/30/14 4:53pm
What's the value of this information? At its most compelling, this is the person who committed the act that is described - something that his victim went through significant effort to keep unreported at the time and away from public scrutiny. At it's worst, this is a person - just like "Barry" - who was the inspiration for a character in a story who may (or may not) have had anything to do with what was ultimately written.
Reply
- Read More
  citecheckMiloMinderbender
  12/30/14 5:02pm
  Well the value of actually naming the guy is questionable, but given that Lena Dunham has been falsely accused of committing libel against the actual Barry and dragged through the mud by the conservative media, I do think there's some value in showing that at one point, she had provided her publishers with specific identifying details of the person she describes in the book and that they do point to an actual human being who was at Oberlin at the same time.
  
  At the very least it demonstrates how moronic Breitbart's investigative "journalism" was. I mean despite her saying that she used a pseudonym they insisted that she was describing a real Barry and when his personal details didn't match up to the description in the book (aside from actually having the fake name she used and being conservative) they argued that she must be making the whole thing up. Instead of, you know, concluding that maybe she really did use a pseudonym and that the Barry they found obviously wasn't who she was talking about.
  Reply
- Read More
  MiloMinderbendercitecheck
  12/30/14 5:09pm
  I don't disagree with that. But that should have come from the publishers; they could have offered some explanation along the lines of "we were given sufficient identifying information to believe that this is plausible but asked that it be removed for publication as it would be too unique, linking an individual to a crime without any law enforcement investigation."
  Reply
Read More
AdamJohnsonNYCJ.K. Trotter
12/30/14 5:15pm
Well, if Dunham was telling the truth but felt the need to embellish his political leanings to suit her "ewww, Republicans" fan base then I would argue the whiny right, for once, actually has a legit gripe. Not in the sense she made it up of course, but that she took a run-of-the-mill DC bro of privilege and morphed him into an conservative straw man. If true, its fucking odd and kinda pathetic.
Reply
- Read More
  Clarence BoddickerAdamJohnsonNYC
  12/30/14 5:41pm
  He probably told a Hillary Clinton joke at some point and that was enough to make him the "resident Republican on campus."
  Reply
- Read More
  AdamJohnsonNYCClarence Boddicker
  12/30/14 5:58pm
  It's almost as if a rapist's political leanings should not, at all, be an important descriptor since the beginning and end of their being evil is the part where they raped someone.
  Reply
Read More
Cam/ronJ.K. Trotter
12/30/14 4:57pm
"After a brief effort to paint Dunham's account of her relationship with her younger sister as a confession of child molestation..."

Regardless of the stone-throwers, her account was still awfully strange and questionable.
Reply
- Read More
  gruffbenjaminCam/ron
  12/30/14 5:21pm
  Agreed. If she says she was abused/raped, I will defend her account. But I also think her story about her sister is, at best, EXTREMELY problematic. I know that if I told a room full of people that I opened up my sister's vagina manually, 99% of them would call the cops ON THE SPOT.
  Reply
- Read More
  Cam/rongruffbenjamin
  12/30/14 5:31pm
  It's not the Pebble Incident but rather her accounts of performing various acts upon her young sister, all of which could be easily considered sexual abuse. Dunham also threw in the Ironic Hipster Defense after describing the acts: "Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying." The whole matter was especially weird when she got big accolades from critics and talk show hosts like Ellen DeGeneres who supposedly read those passages and still said they loved the book.
  Reply
Read More
Freddie DeBoerJ.K. Trotter
12/30/14 5:53pm
Central problem here is that we have no system to exonerate people who were never formally investigated by the police or were investigated but never charged. And while I am of the camp that believes that false rape reports are rare, we also know that the system — not the victims — gets it wrong far more often than we would like.

Unfortunately, such talk typically gets you hit with "ARGLE BARGLE RAPE APOLOGIST RAPE DENIALIST" so there's little chance that we'll come up with a communal attitude that is just and humane.
Reply
- Read More
  uncoolmeFreddie DeBoer
  12/30/14 6:33pm
  I have to admit to some confusion about what an *innocent* high-profile recipient of an accusation should do.
  
  In the case of Conor Oberst, he was a rapist as soon as the allegation hit and a rotten person for suing in an attempt to restore his reputation. His accuser was to be believed when she accused him but was obviously lying when she recanted.
  
  The only successful route seems to be the "fuck you, feminists, I'm suing" Michael Arrington one. That's... discouraging.
  Reply
- Read More
  scienceisthebestFreddie DeBoer
  12/30/14 9:20pm
  I don't think the central problem is we don't have a system to exonerate people not investigated formally. The problem is that victims don't feel comfortable reporting incidents so that those people can be investigated and charged.
  Reply
Read More
cpjonesJ.K. Trotter
12/30/14 6:55pm
I haven't read Lena's book, so I've only understood her allegations of rape through Gawker's coverage of it. I can say, I have had a similar experience recently. I too felt like it was rape afterwards, but didn't report it due to the circumstances of the experience and based on fear that I wouldn't be taken seriously. I was just thankful I didn't catch an STD. You're often left wondering if you'd be believed if revealing it to anyone, but have had a few understanding friends' responses. Because of the response to Bill Cosby's many accusers, I feel like I'd experience something similar (on a lesser public scale obviously) and have no desire to go through it. I have no desire to see someone falsely accused of rape either and had Lena wanted to hide her alleged rapist's details, I don't feel like she should have stated such clearly identifiable details in her book proposal (even if it wasn't something that is usually found out by people like Gawker). I feel like if I hinted at my non-consensual sex partner's information, I'd face similar scrutiny and have no desire to do so (and barely want to hit the publish button in this comment. But I'm human and we all face scrutiny in many other arenas. Blech.
Reply
- Read More
  Lannister Handjobcpjones
  12/30/14 9:03pm
  I'm so sorry that this non-consensual act was visited on you by a partner who (it sounds like) you trusted. It is not your responsibility to tell or talk about it, but there are also many groups meant to help. You're not suffering along.
  
  It's strange what we put up with/accept in the moment. Sometimes it may be because of fear, or because of the conditioning to be accommodating.
  
  All we can do is keep preaching the gospel of the enthusiastic yes! is consent, not a lack of a no.
  Reply
Read More
Jane, you ignorant slut.J.K. Trotter
12/30/14 5:21pm
Jesus. Don't ever tell your rape story, kids. Not even if you make it a point not to name names. No one will ever respect your privacy ever again.
Reply
- Read More
  Albert KuntekoJane, you ignorant slut.
  12/30/14 6:01pm
  Exactly whose privacy is being violated here? The guy who is being accused of rape based on a leaked book proposal? The guy's elderly father who was tracked down at home? Or the woman who originally wrote about the rape, not for justice or for education, but for cash?
  Reply