Gawker Outs Lena Dunham's Alleged Republican Attacker—As a Democrat


Lena Dunham / Youtube

Gawker's J.K. Trotter recently made the decision to publish the name of the person he now presumes to be Lena Dunham's alleged rapist. That was irresponsible of him. Several journalists have dedicated considerable time to investigating the sexual assault that Dunham chronicled in her memoir, Not That Kind of Girl; their reporting, and all information made available by Dunham in response, suggests that the attacker in the story may be a composite character based on her impressions of several dfferent people. Indeed, the person Gawker outed was not even a Republican activist—the key identifying detail attributed to the attacker in the memoir.

In Not That Kind of Girl, Dunham recounts a specific instance of sexual assault during her time at Oberlin College. The book identifies the perp as "Barry," the campus's resident conservative, who wore cowboy boots and worked at the library. There's no suggestion that the name "Barry" was a pseudonym, though the book comes with a general warning that "some details and identifying details have been changed." Still, it's billed as a memoir, and the expectation is that the events depicted actually happened.

And in fact, there was a campus Republican named Barry at Oberlin at that time: one that many interested readers were able to dig up on the internet with ease. But this man never had sex with Dunham, or even met her—facts that conservative critics of Dunham were eager to prove, given how specific she was about her rapist's party affiliation. Earlier this month, Dunham apologized for inadvertently (according to her) impugning the real-life Barry. Any similarities between the rapist she described in the book and the actual man named Barry were purely coincidental, as she had indeed used a pseudonym. The previously mentioned "identifying details" were changed in order to obscure the real identities of certain people, including the perpetrator, according to Dunham.

But if not Barry, then who? Enter Gawker. Trotter's post is titled "Who Is Lena Dunham's Rapist?" It then purports to answer that question:

Dunham didn't invent a rapist character out of thin air, as the conservative writers have implied. The 2012 proposal for Not That Kind of Girl recounted the same night of unwanted unprotected sex—and supplied enough specific biographical detail to identify the man being described.

His name is Philip Samuel Ungar, a 2006 graduate of Oberlin. Now 30, he's the son of formerAll Things Considered host and retired Goucher College president Sanford J. Ungar. Dunham has never explicitly named him, but his biography closely aligns with her characterization of her alleged rapist—"His father was actually the former host of NPR's All Things Considered"in an early draft of the chapter where she describes being assaulted.

Trotter attempted to reach both Ungar and his father, receiving no response. The gossip journalist is in some sense well-qualified to evaluate the changing narrative of Dunham's attack, given that Gawker obtained and published the original book proposal for Not That Kind of Girl, which included a better description of the rapist than the one that made it into print.

Still, naming Ungar at all strikes me as a terrible move at this point. For one thing, while he does match many of the given details—he had a mustache, was the right ethnicity, and graduated late, like Dunham's rapist—the one factor that positively does not match up is his party affiliation. Trotter admits that Ungar was not formally registered to either party while in college. In 2012, he registered as a Democrat. It's hard, then, to see this man as Oberlin's resident Republican activist.

To his credit, Trotter readily admits this:

So what explains the significant evolution of the alleged rapist's description between the proposal and the published text? Random House and Dunham, through her attorney, both declined to comment. It seems possible that the publisher asked her to remove the more identifying details to close off the possibility of a libel lawsuit—only to blunder into another potential suit thanks to the "surreal coincidence" of giving the rapist character the same name as a real Oberlin alumnus.

It's possible, also, that Ungar is not the person who raped Dunham—that, for reasons unknown, she used certain details of Ungar's life in her description of her sexual assault, and decided to remove them upon publication of the memoir.

But then why spell out his name, if there is a good possibility that Ungar never raped Dunham, but rather, details of his character were synthesized with the actual perp? Why write an article essentially saying, who knows if this person did this, but here's his name, anywayThis does not strike me as categorically different than bloggers deciding to leak the last name of "Jackie" from the Rolling Stone rape story (along with a picture of the wrong woman), something I criticized on Twitter. Dunham never actually named Ungar, either directly or indirectly, in the memoir, so Gawker is on fairly shaky ground, considering that the man Trotter is accusing is not actually an Oberlin Republican activist. The reporting itself is solid, but leaving out Ungar's name would have been the wiser thing to do.

It seems very possible to me—nearly proven, even—that Dunham's memoir is not a memoir. Details were altered, events were discounted or embellished, characters were dropped or merged together, etc., in service of crafting a better story. There would be nothing particularly wrong with this; plenty of good writers use their own life experiences as a jumping off point before arriving at a more compelling plot. She should have noted, however, that Not That Kind of Girl is merely based on a true story. The warning that "identifying details" were changed doesn't quite cut it.

Given all these reasonable assumptions, Barry is very probably a composite character, or a specific character whose key traits—like his party affiliation—were altered to make a more convenient villain. It's no secret that Lena Dunham is a standard-issue liberal Democrat who likened voting for President Obama to losing her virginity. Her HBO show, Girls—which somehow manages more self-awareness than Dunham seems capable of—even parodied her Republicans-are-Hitler approach to party politics. It's not hard to imagine Dunham writing her rapist as a conservative Republican, both to conceal the identity of the actual perp and also to castigate Republicans.

Trotter defended his decision to name Ungar as the maybe-sort-of-possible-rapist initially described by Dunham in her book proposal on the grounds that he is really just trying to critique the conservative media reporters who dispute that Dunham was raped at all:

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 don't know whether that notion is conventional wisdom in right-wing circles or not, but Breitbart's John Nolte—who conducted the investigation that prompted Dunham to clear the real Barry—explicitly stated it was still possible she was raped by someone else:

Maybe Lena Dunham's rapist is out there, and maybe this man voted for George W. Bush, and maybe this man did indeed hurt two other women. …

Lena Dunham might have been raped at Oberlin College, but the "Barry" she describes in her memoir is a ghost.

If other conservatives are insisting that Dunham wasn't raped at all, then yes, they deserve criticism. But Gawker deserves criticism for showing so little regard for a real person whose relationship to the literary character "Barry" is highly suspect. Many of Gawker's commenters, at least, have taken Trotter to task. One commenter, MiloMinderbinder, writes:

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.

Of course, it looks to me like most criticism should actually be reserved for Dunham herself—either for altering key details of her story to paint her political enemies as literal monsters, or for failing to disclose that her story is an embellishment. If the person who attacked her in real-life is significantly different from the person who attacked her in the story—as Gawker's reporting implies—then conservatives were not merely justified in questioning her narrative, but also in criticizing the political agenda that accompanied it.

NEXT: Best of 2014: A Ride-Along With Guatemala's Volunteer Ambulance Drivers on The Front Lines of America's Drug War

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. In the future, everyone will sue Lena Dunham for libel for 15 minutes.

      1. Milo Minderbinder still owes me money on an Egyptian cotton deal. Could someone “out” his address?

        1. I have a feeling there’s a catch-22 there

      2. No one is going to admit to having sex with Lena Dunham.

    2. she is a lying bitch, just like the one down at Virginia that lied about being gang raped at a frat house. Never happened. Feminists love to lie about being raped because it gives them “street cred” and defames the white male power structure which of course doesn’t actually exist.
      Fucking socialists/feminists will lie steal and cheat(or even kill their own unborn children) to get ahead.

  1. An irresponsible Gawker writer? Suuuure, Soave. You didn’t even get an MA from Columbia.

    1. “An irresponsible Gawker writer?”
      I’m unsure why you choose to add a question mark there

    2. Isn’t this the same book that she admitted to molesting her pre teen sister – yep she is definitely a credible person.

  2. http://jezebel.com/vile-journo…..1667943035

    ^ Remember three weeks ago when Gawker affiliated sites were rightfully angry at a right-wing douchebag for releasing the name of the person he thought was Jackie?

    It sure is a good thing that Gawker is consistent and in no way hypocritical.

    1. AFAIK his identification of Jackie was correct, and I think releasing the name of a fake rape accuser is different from releasing the name of a real victim.

      1. Either way, its all Gawker…

        aka “clickbait ambulance-chasing sewer-sucking C-grade sub-par torture-of-the-english-language juvenile outrage-stoking horsehit that makes Dear-Abby or Alt-Weekly Gossip columnists look like Woodward & Bernstein”

  3. “If other conservatives are insisting that Dunham wasn’t raped at all, then yes, they deserve criticism.”

    Why? There’s no evidence she was, her story keeps changing, and she clearly transformed her alleged rapist into a Republican because it would play better with the people who buy her book.

    Given her long string of blatant lies regarding this matter, skepticism that she was assaulted at all seems merited. You can’t wildly point the finger at a well known campus Republican for supposedly raping you, admit that you blatantly lied about every fact regarding that alleged assault, and then expect people to believe the rest of your story.

    1. This comment struck me as well. This story has proven to be false with even the most remedial investigation. Insisting she wasn’t raped at all is the only reasonable position.

      What’s scary about Dunham, and now Jackie is that they only got caught because their stories are so fantastical and stupid that they couldn’t be tied to a person. But if they had actually falsely accused someone that really existed he would likely be looking at prison time.

      1. Oh please, it’s not the only reasonable position. As I recall, this whole story was about her asking the guy to use a condom and him lying about it. That’s impossible to prove without a confession from the guy, and it’s possible/likely that Dunham is exaggerating it all, but the basics could still have happened. We simply do not know, and probably will never know, absent a confession by either party.

        It’s also likely that she didn’t “realize it was rape” until she saw the benefit in calling it rape and calling herself a rape victim. But that doesn’t mean the only reasonable position is to think she invented it whole cloth. It could still be based in fact, and if so, the guy was in the wrong.

        1. Bullshit, every aspect of her story that can be checked has been false. The actual Barry didn’t know her, nobody fits the description, a mustachioed purple cowboy boot wearing Republican activist/rapist might as well have been a superhero alien made of unobtanium. It would be just as believable and provable. Your saying if any aspect even has a possibility of being true it’s reasonable to ignore all the blatant lies. Because humans exist and humans were in her story it could be true.

          It could be, but only a retard would entertain that possibility in the face of all the evidence showing it isn’t, and no evidence showing it is.

          1. I’m saying you need proof to say she is lying about the act itself. You don’t have any. It’s reasonable to suspect she is lying, and it’s reasonable to suspect that something did happen and she’s trying to sensationalize it. See J Mann’s post below.

            1. Both of your positions are flawed…Mr. Anderson is saying that since most of her stories are lies, her claim about being raped must be untrue. This is false…it is possible that she was lying about everything *except* being raped.

              MJ, however, is arguing that despite Dunham’s story being debunked on almost every single investigatible claim, we must have proof to assume she’s lying about being raped. That’s also wrong…she’s clearly an unreliable narrator at best and the fact that her story has fallen apart so quickly gives ample reason to believe that the rape is false as well.

              Basically, it’s possible that Lena Dunham was telling the truth about being raped, but since she’s apparently a pathological liar who libels people for publicity, it’s her own fault if nobody believes she was raped.

              1. I know the answer.

                Who the fuck cares?!

                People who believe in rape culture bullshit are going to find things to support their narrative, whether or not Dunham’s story is bullshit. It makes no difference to anything. Why even bother having an opinion?

              2. No, I’m only saying you need proof to declare that she invented this whole thing. You don’t have to believe her, but it is also not unreasonable to think she is telling the truth. Calling her a liar about this act is a new, affirmative statement that requires proof.

                Again, I took issue with his claim, “Insisting she wasn’t raped at all is the only reasonable position.” For that insistence to be the only reasonable position, you need proof, not just evidence that she’s lied about other things.

                1. I don’t think you need any proof to declare she invented it. She’s been debunked as a liar in many other parts of the book…it’s completely reasonable to assume she’s lying about the rape and state that.

                  It might be wrong, but there’s nothing unreasonable about telling a pathological liar that nothing they say can be trusted and that all of their claims are probably lies.

                  1. It might be factually incorrect on occasion, I meant…but there’s nothing ethically wrong with doing so.

                    1. I think it comes down to burden of proof. She has effectively shifted the burden of proof for any further claims about this event onto herself because she has lied about so many other details. The most reasonable assumption seems to be she had sex (shocking, I know) and then later invented all the details surrounding it – it’s no longer reasonable to believe that any sort of rape occurred until she provides further evidence that it did.

                2. “Again, I took issue with his claim, “Insisting she wasn’t raped at all is the only reasonable position.” For that insistence to be the only reasonable position, you need proof, not just evidence that she’s lied about other things.”

                  Bull. A pathological liar has the burden of proof in my book. A person who is known to be a liar never gets the benefit of the doubt with me. Why risk being played for a fool by those who think that telling me a lie is their perogative.

                  There once was a little boy who cried wolf.

                  Is there something in liberals kool-aid that lets them believe that writing a book under the genre “memoirs” means making shit up so that your life unfolded as you wish it had rather than what actually took place ? Our current CnC has done it twice.

                3. The burden of proof should fall on the accuser. She hasn’t actually filed charges, but alleged to be a victim of rape.

                  She either lied about the rape or created a fictional “Barry” character as a stand in for the actual rapist. But for what reason? Why do you need to protect the identity of a rapist? There’s no statue of limitation on rape, I think.

                  I’ve seen victims referred to as “John / Jane Doe” in reporting. I’ve never seen it done for the benefit of someone (adult) formally accused of a crime.

            2. I’m saying you need proof to say she is lying about the act itself.

              No, not if we use the standard of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

              Now that a specific person has been identified, he doesn’t have to prove he’s innocent, she must prove he’s guilty and thus far, the only reasonable conclusion, based on the preponderance of evidence, is that this event didn’t take place at all.

              1. I didn’t say anything about burden of proof. C’mon, guys. Of course the burden of proof is on her, it always has been. She’s the accuser.

                That still doesn’t make it right to declare the incident never happened. You don’t have the evidence for that. You can say you’re unconvinced (I’m not convinced anything too nefarious happened), but to act as if it’s now proven that she invented the incident altogether – and that this is the only reasonable conclusion one can make – is going too far. And it goes too far in an ugly direction.

                What the fuck is so hard about saying, “I don’t know what happened to her that night. I suspect she may be making it up altogether.”? What reason is there to turn it to 11 and insist, “None of this happened! She made all it up!!”?

                1. It’s not the lack of proof that the rape happened that make people say it never happened…it’s the lack of proof plus the fact that her book is filled with debunked lies.

        2. Wow,

          Do you realize how absurd you sound? “It could be based in fact”? But why would that be your working assumption?

          If I told you someone has broken in my house and stolen my guitar, then you discovered no damage to my house and I still had my guitar, it is POSSIBLE that the kindly thief returned it, but would that be your assumption?

          Sorry dude, you just sound silly.

      2. Scary indeed. Just like how they claim only the 5% of rape reports that are ruled unsubstatiated (i.e., the accuser recants or is blatantly lying) are false.

        In other words, the feminist assumption (widely accepted in the mainstream media) is that if an accuser’s story is remotely plausible, isn’t flagrantly false, then it must be true.

        As though every false accuser is going to be so dumb as to accuse a man who was on a different continent of raping her.

    2. ^This Irish.

      They keep claiming there is a rape culture. When they give examples those examples keep turning out to be fictions. Their defense is that those fictions are ‘false but accurate’, yet they can’t produce any real life examples that fit the narrative they are pushing. The only verifiable facts to be found contradict their narrative.

      It is like trying to get a straight story from a gang of convicts; a pack of liars all telling different lies and all those lies keep changing.

      At some point you just have to throw up your hands and proclaim them all to be a bunch of fucking liars. There is no reason to believe them or even give them the benefit of doubt anymore.

    3. I’d say insisting that she wasn’t raped at all is not nice or responsible. No one but Dunham knows either way. Point out inconsistencies in the story and sow doubts, fine. But to say it is definitely a lie is a bit much.

      But the decent thing to do would still be to ignore her, not obsessively seek out “the truth”. It doesn’t really add anything useful and probably won’t change anyone’s mind. And it’s a little weird. But I suppose that’s what gossip writers do. I just don’t know why anyone gives a shit. Ooh, people embellish their memoirs, what a surprise!

      1. No, sorry – if you keep lying, and keep lying, and keep lying, I see no reason not to call your entire story a lie.

        People can’t just say whatever the hell they want to and never have it doubted.

        1. Doubting her is not the same as insisting it is all a lie.

          1. Yeah, that’s really all I want to say. Doubt the fuck out of her, if you can be bothered to spare her a thought. But insistig

            Fuck it, this is so uninteresting that I’m out of this thread.

          2. How is that different? If you do not believe what she says, then it did not happen (to you). That would make it a lie. Should I just be agnostic on this for the rest of my life?

            1. If you do not believe it happened, then you do not believe it happened. If you suspect she’s lying, that’s cool. To declare she’s lying as if it were a fact is something else. With no evidence for this particular incident, about something that happened to people you will never know and which is not being pursued legally, why do you need to be anything other than agnostic?

              1. Because these people don’t deserve the benefit of doubt. It’s impossible to prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. She acts like she’s full of shit, her story is filled with falsity. Why should we NOT go with “she mad it up?” There’s nothing to lose in calling her a liar, unless it is proven that she WAS raped. Which will never happen. Because she fucking made it up.

        2. I see no reason to bother with it at all. If she hadn’t written her stupid book, there would be plenty of other stories to fit the narrative. It makes no difference if one story or another is a lie. There are still plenty of similar true stories. The fact that any particular rape happened or didn’t happen doesn’t say anything about any supposed rape culture or how consent should be considered.

          1. Zeb,

            it’s not just that she has impeached herself as a witness.

            It’s that we know where her self-interest on the topic lies. She is emotionally invested in a narrative and is an impeached witness.

            If only 6% of the female population is raped in their lifetime, than statistically its unlikely Lena was raped.

            Statistically its unlikely.
            Her witness is unreliable.
            She has vested interest towards fabrication.

            None of this means conclusive proof, but reasonable ppl with limited information will still arrive at similar conclusions. If you want to disbelieve rape culture that will push you even further away from trusting her.

          2. The problem is she’s going to keep trying to cash in on her alleged rape.

            It is true that one can’t conclusively say whether it happened, but that’s true of anything and anyone. Given that she’s a serial liar (and even if she was raped, she attempted to use it as ammunition to slander her political opponents, which is disgusting), not to mention an admitted child molester, I would say she deserves no pity.

            At some point, even the leftists are going to have to wake up and realize this ship has been sunk, tie to get off and move on to something else.

        3. This makes me recall Dan Rather’s conversation a few years back with Larry King on the subject of Bill Clinton’s mendacities. Rather, being a good liberal, referred to Clinton as “honest” and King bridled at that given the number of times Clinton had been caught lying about things. Rather gave us an interesting insight into the value mess which is at the core of the American liberal’s mind:

          “You may disagree with this, but I think you can lie about any number of things and still be an honest man.”

          I doubt he would say that about anyone on the right, but it appears to be his value pass for his fellow travelers. I’m pretty sure Rather would say Lena Dunham is an honest person, even if all the facts are pure bullshit.

      2. as for your second point, people care because movements that Dunham helps create get kids expelled from school and defamed in the media. Oh, and it helped bassed the grossly illiberal “active consent” law in California, so now she’s helping people go to jail too.

      3. ‘No one but Dunham knows either way.’
        The man who had sex with her knows, as well. Only Dunham knows if she THINKS she was raped, but rape has a clear definition to which you can compare actual events to determine if they were rape… at least it used to, I’m not sure anymore.

        1. The man who had sex with her knows, as well.

          Assuming she didn’t make it all up. Perhaps I should say “the only person that we can say with anything close to certainty knows what the truth is is Dunham”.

      4. You are silly. She has been shown to be a habitual liar. At this point to be credible she has to produce proof to even get minimum consideration.

        The story IS a lie. The only question is whether there is a kernel of truth in it anywhere.

        At this point she needs to either come clean, or shut up. Your demanding everyone be “nice” to her is irresponsible.

  4. Come on, Rico. Why wasn’t the title of this “Ungar Games” or some other clever play?

    As I said before, it strikes me as likely that Dunham shoehorned in the rape narrative after much of the book was already done, to capitalize on the rape victim frenzy sweeping her ilk. Why not add the splendid detail that her attacker was a Republican while she’s at it?

    1. It sounds like the story was included in the “2012 proposal,” so it was not thrown in at the last minute. The Republican affiliation was probably a later punch-up, though.

      1. As I understand it, the story is technically in there twice. The first part, it wasn’t rape. Later, it was.

        1. Right, I believe she says she had sex with some Republican, then later she brings him up again and says, “Also, he raped me.”

    2. “Why wasn’t the title of this “Ungar Games” “

      (Slow clap)

      1. Ungar Games: Catching a Liar

  5. It’s ok what happened to Barry the Republican because it helps bring awareness about privileged white Republicans who do this stuff on the reg. Yeah it sucks for him but it’s a small price to pay for the greater narrative. And it’s ok to out the rapist because he is a rapist. All we really have here is a victim and two perpetrators, a real perp, but even more importantly a symbolic one who illustrates the greater issue at hand.

    1. /sarc right?

      It’s sad because this could have been lifted word for word from some blog/article/comment. There is no spoofing these people anymore, they have gone off the deep end.

      1. It’s sarcasm; sadly, you’re also quite correct that this could literally be a proggie’s diatribe.

        1. You know that in the future, when medical science advances some more, Brain transplants are going to be possible.

          Everyone is going to want the brain from the Progressive donor. After all, wouldn’t you want one that had never been used before?

      2. We really do have NO WAY of knowing if this is sarcasm other than this person clarifying it. It really is impossible to satirize them now. Read a satirical comment on here about some issue, then go to TheYoungTurks on youtube and read the comments on the same issue. If anything the satire is less insane than the truth sometimes. It really is becoming creepy.

        1. It is sarcasm! But yeah… It’s pretty tame compared to some of the actual nonsense that gets floated out there.

          1. And not even just ‘out there.’ On Slate, Salon, even the New York Times. And not even the blog sections. They behave as if stupidity were a science. (Anyone else a fan of the original ‘Flight of the Phoenix’?)

            1. The President says he’s convinced no one named “Barry” ever went to Oberlin. And don’t ask to see his grades either.

  6. Well, I for one will step up to the plate — Lena Dunham is a bullshitter, and there is zero reason to entertain her claim about having been raped when 1) she did not perceive it as rape until well after the incident, 2) did nothing about it at the time, and 3) made absolutely fantastic and provably wrong claims about her alleged rapist and the incident itself. Even removing her politics and personality from the equation (which is probably for the best), her credibility and integrity on this matter is scraping the bottom of the ocean floor. Why the hell should I believe her or entertain her narrative as having some truth value?

    Anything is possible, but not everything is credible. This is not credible, and the only reason it is being entertained as such by either Gawker or its conservative counterparts is because rape is treated differently in such a way that false accusers are not scorned in the same manner as, say, those who falsely accuse others of murder or theft.

    1. Well said, sir!

      I no longer credit anything Lena Durham says; she has been caught in too many untruths.

    2. ^^ This

      Q: “Who Is Lena Dunham’s Rapist?”

      A: Nobody

      1. Or everyone…

      2. Lena Dunham’s Sisters rapist on the other hand is well known

      3. Q: “Who Is Lena Dunham’s Rapist?”

        A: Nobody who’ll ever be charged with a crime because Dunham is a pathological liar whose testimony can never be trusted.

        1. Q:’Who is Lena Dunham’s Rapist?’
          A: The man-o-centric male-ocracy, you misogynist.

      4. A: Time Magazine’s Man of the Year.

        1. Would it be sexist if I said ‘deaf, dumb, and blind’? Because he’d have to be.

          1. You’re too generous. Can you imagine what that hog smells and tastes like? The odor of a Bangladeshi landfill I expect she exudes could soften any erection in a millisecond.

            The guy had a nose and a tongue when he did the deed, he has surely cut both of them off by now.

    3. I don’t know why Soave is working so hard on this one. If he’s eager to present all possible theories of an actual rape, the easiest one to me seems that she was raped and she screamed Republican.

      1. Actually, the easiest one to me is that she lied about being raped in order to gain publicity for her book, since her target demographic is progressive liberal misandrists who want to believe that all men are rapists.

        Of course she might have been telling the truth about being raped, just like Peter was telling the truth about the wolf the last time in that children’s story. But since she’s been caught lying so many times, it’s her own fault if everyone assumes she’s lying this time.

        1. Oh well the Complete Lie is the easiest of all. Soave is concocting “theories of actual rape,” in which the Partial Lie would be instant blaming of the political enemy.

          Sigh, libertarians will know we’re a foe to be reckoned with on the day they start blaming US for non-existent sex assaults.

          1. I think he’s just trying to strike a politic balance in his article to avoid being labeled as a “libertarian rape enabler” by the nutjobs.

            Frankly, I think it’s kind of chickenshit, but whatever…he’s the one with his name on the byline, so if the consequences of being blunt are more than he’s willing to take, it’s his call.


    5. “Why the hell should I believe her or entertain her narrative as having some truth value?”

      Because pretending to do so wins points for you in the liberal social-network?

      Because its a career for some people?

      “The problem isn’t that we’re talking too much about college campuses. It’s that we aren’t talking enough about rape”

      Thank you, Salon. You’ll always be there when we need more. #FontOfDerp

  7. Whenever I encounter a story on Lena Dunham, the optimism and hope I feel for humanity diminishes.

    1. Why?

      Most of humanity is figuring out that she is garbage. She is at the zenith of her career, and she isn’t even 30 yet.

      1. Yes, but we still know who she is. That’s the tragedy.

          1. She’s like a less-talented Rosanne Barr.

            1. So she has negative talent?

      2. Most of humanity has no idea who she is, a small portion know the name and that she’s some kind of actress and writer, and an even smaller portion is familiar with her work.

        1. a small portion

          True, but they are incredibly vocal or whatever the twitter equivalent to that is.

          1. Thumby?

          2. The problem is that people who write for a living all know who she is, therefore, the reading public (us) are subjected to their cultural myopia.

            The good news is you are free to ignore both those writers (Soave, I’m looking at you) and Lena Dunham.

            1. Why do I suspect though that plenty of staffers for senators like Gillibrand, McCaskill, and Warren are among those who idolize her? People who influence public policy.

              When a brand of stupidity becomes common among those with power and influence, it unfortunately becomes a public concern.

  8. Why is it wrong to release the name of Jackie. She made accusations that are false, she should be subject to the same public ridicule she attempted to create.

    1. Actually, given UVA’s Honor Code, she should be booted out of school.

    2. There is significant evidence that “Jackie” suffers some mental illnesses that need treatment. The lion’s share of the scorn in that case should be directed at the people who gave her an audience and credibility.

      1. I disagree.

        You’re mentally ill so it’s okay for you to murder someone? You’re mentally ill so it’s okay to rape little boys in the shower?

        How far gone would someone have to be to not be able to realize the above actions are wrong? But we give a pass to those who falsely accuse rape? She should not only have her name released, but she should be in prison.

        And the fraternity that was accused should be the owners/operators of Rolling Stone right now.

        1. Yes and the President of UVA who shut them down, should be acting as the Fraternity House maid right now.

          And to the extent that Jackie was nuts, that makes Rolling Stone and the author look that much worse. Not only did they falsely slander people, but also they basically exploited someone who is clearly ill for the purpose of cheap headlines.

          1. Like I said. Jackie only deserves a little blame. Plenty of crazy people say crazy things all the time. It’s not always libel worthy of punishment. When a major news outlet lends its credibility to the crazy person, then it becomes worthy of punishment. Maybe Jackie deserves a year in prison to think about what she’s done. I don’t know. But Rolling Stone should be bankrupt and under new management by now.

            1. Yeah. UVA and the Cops rightly ignored her and saw her for what she is. It was only when Rolling Stone showed up that she was able to start doing real damage.

              1. Yet the UVA pres banned Fraternities anyway.

            2. Blame the criminal. I guess, in this case, since no actual police complaint was filed (I believe that’s the case) this would be a matter for civil court. HOWEVER.

              Jackie accused a group of young men, of violent rape. The potential outcome, of which, could have robbed these men of their very lives. Not just the time lost in the prison sentence, but the rest of their lives on sex offenders lists. As it is, even without conviction, these men’s lives are permanently tarnished as many will always have doubts.

              That’s REAL initiation of force.

              What RS did was do a shitty job of reporting. That’s not even CLOSE to the indiscretions of Jackie.

              Should RS be held accountable? You bet. But Jackie’s part in this is a thousand times worse.

              1. And, just because she was mentally ill doesn’t mean she was actually incapable of determining right from wrong. There are varying degrees of mental illness and comprehension of reality.

                Serial killers are mentally ill…we still hold them accountable for their actions. Being fucked up in the head isn’t a get out of jail free card that allows you to do whatever you want without consequence. Jackie accused a group of innocent people of rape to try and impress a boy she liked…it is quite plausible that she understood the consequences of her actions and simply didn’t care what effects it would have on the people she accused. Why not out someone like that?

            3. You don’t have any proof she’s mentally unwell. Irrespective of that, she’s still did something wrong and harmful. Rolling Stone bought a story based on their biases and a histrionic actor, and that’s incompetent. Jackie is malicious. That’s worse.

              1. There’s plenty of evidence that she’s mentally ill. Her actions could easily be tied to bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder. That doesn’t automatically absolve her of responsibility for her actions, however…which was my point.

                We’re not really in disagreement on the key points of this debate.

                1. She needs to be in a nuthouse, not in prison. Tossing her in the clink will only lead to her becoming a violent sociopath if she is already a borderline personality.

                  RS, on the other hand, should be gutted in civil court to pay back whatever they can for the men they raked over the coals.

                  1. I think she just needs to be sued for slander, along with Rolling Stone.

                    The burden of proof should be on her to show she can’t understand the consequences of her actions. Until then, her mental illness shouldn’t preclude her from being outed and having her life ruined (socially and financially).

                    Just because she’s a stalkerish psycho doesn’t mean she isn’t responsible for her actions.

          2. ‘Yes and the President of UVA who shut them down, should be acting as the Fraternity House maid right now.’

            Or marching at the head of a parade in their honor after they have their double-dodeca-super-secret probation lifted.

      2. There is significant evidence that “Jackie” suffers some mental illnesses that need treatment.

        This is crap.

        The media publishes the names of veterans who shoot their families, even though those guys are suffering from PTSD.

        Jackie’s name is being hidden because she’s a woman. Full stop.

        When men can’t handle their own emotions and do crazy shit, we put their names in the paper. I see no reason not to do that to women too.

        1. All of that and more fluffy.

        2. Exactly.

          Equal rights means equal treatment when you violate other people’s rights.

    3. As a proven false accuser she also poses a danger to others who she may have falsely accused, or threatened with false accusations. Just as it is necessary to publicize other types of fraud (including attempted), it is right to publicize her for the safety of all.

      Sorry, feminists, that’s how things work. But the feminists are doubling down on the victim narrative and this is going to end very badly for them and victims of actual assault.

      1. And yet they want women to be taken equally seriously in realms of life as men. How can that happen when one who fucks up can retroactively blame it on mental problems despite no prior diagnosis?

        It is as though they believe a woman cannot be held responsible for bad behavior, because by definition women only behave badly when mentally ill and therefore not culpable. What an egalitarian sentiment!

        If feminists really believed in equality, they’d be the first ones in line to see to it that Jackie faces the consequences of her actions, and especially Erderly.

  9. Lena Dunham is a lying sack of crap.

    But, let’s accept the claim that he was raped for a moment.

    Why did she falsely paint her rapist as a republican, instead of the democrat or whatever he was, in her memoir? Perhaps because it is the story of how she became a deranged partisan liar.

    1. Because accusations of rape are just an means to an end these SJW shitbags. In this case the ends were to slander those with whom she has ideological disagreement. There’s no reason at all, to give her the benefit of the doubt.

      1. There is that and also accusing someone in the hive or rape means your allegation might be looked at with skepticism rather than taken as the Gospel truth.

      2. I think this is a pretty big aspect of it. The more I look at the the SJW claims here, the more I wonder how many of them batted an eye about Roman Polansky. That is to say, I’m beginning to think they really don’t really think rape’s a problem at all, as much as a useful gimmick to stab their opposition with.

        1. That is exactly what they think about it. Juanita Broderick made a pretty credible accusation of rape against Bill Clinton. She was alone with him at the time she said it happened and there were multiple people who said she left the room looking traumatized. How many of these “you must believe the accuser” feminists believed or believe her?

          1. Yeah, but I’m beginning to think something more repulsive than just double standards is going on. I’m beginning to think that they don’t really see rape as all that big a deal, only something that they know will push the right public buttons.

            Now, that level of sociopathy is a pretty harsh suggestion. But, if you accept it, a lot of things fall into place that, otherwise, seem incomprehensible.

            * If they don’t think it’s really a big deal, it makes sense that they’d excuse some rapes.
            * If they don’t think it’s really a big deal, it makes sense that they’d think false accusations are okay.
            * If they don’t think it’s really a big deal, it makes sense that they’d think it’s okay to lie about its frequency.
            * If they don’t think it’s really a big deal, it makes sense that they’d scoff at the idea of presumption of innocence.
            * If they don’t think it’s really a big deal, it makes sense that they’d conflate it with drunken hook-ups or not wearing a condom.

            1. They are totalitarians Bill. Everything in life is politics for them. So rape is like everything else, just a tool to be used to further their politics. If someone being raped is necessary to further their politics, so be it. If making rape out to be so horrible that even accusing someone of it dooms them furthers their politics, so be it.

              It is how sick they really are.

              1. In that sense they are true disciples of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, the originator of the idea that “everything is political.”

                It is also worth noting that these people are as collectivist as it gets. Susan Brownmiller’s book “Against our Will” well encapsulates their reasoning: when a man rapes a woman, it is not an individual act, but merely one instantiation of the systematic rape of all women by all men; the threat of rape that lingers over all women is a crime itself, and all men are implicit perpetrators.

                Ipso facto, no man is truly innocent of rape, and all women are, in some sense, victims. This is why they feel no empathy for men sent to prison or killed over false allegations: because even these men weren’t really innocent.

                What’s troubling, Brownmiller isn’t seen as being that radical, like Dworkin; she’s fairly widely read even in ‘moderate’ feminist circles and I wouldn’t be surprised if her work informs the attitudes of some judges and politicians (McCaskill and Gillibrand come to mind).

            2. * If they don’t think it’s really a big deal, it makes sense that they’d excuse some rapes.
              * If they don’t think it’s really a big deal, it makes sense that they’d think false accusations are okay.
              * If they don’t think it’s really a big deal, it makes sense that they’d think it’s okay to lie about its frequency.
              * If they don’t think it’s really a big deal, it makes sense that they’d scoff at the idea of presumption of innocence.
              * If they don’t think it’s really a big deal, it makes sense that they’d conflate it with drunken hook-ups or not wearing a condom.

              well put

        2. Rape is only a crime when icky people do it.

          1. Rape is only a crime to progressives when white male Republicans do it.

            Which is why progressives were happy to keep putting Teddy Kennedy in the Senate election after election.

            1. Rape is only a crime to progressives when white male Republicans do it.

              And which is why recent gang-rapes on campuses perpetrated by blacks didn’t get nearly the publicity that UVA and the Duke lacrosse cases did. (With the partial exception that cases involving athletes do tend to get some publicity.)

              1. Yup. I’m a student at USC right now and my school email inbox is filled with security alerts of robberies and assaults occurring just a block off the USC campus…almost all perpetrators black (the campus is located right across the street from a giant block of Section 8 housing in a high-crime area).

                After a Chinese student was shot and murdered a few months ago, the LAPD chief’s only comment on it was that this was the sort of thing you could expect from situations of visible income inequality.

                Personally, I think it’s the kind of thing you can expect when the criminals have no fear of getting shot in the face because their victims are unarmed and the cops are incompetent.

                1. the LAPD chief’s only comment on it was that this was the sort of thing you could expect from situations of visible income inequality.

                  WTF? Visible income inequality causes murder? So the LAPD Chief is a radical Marxist?

                2. That’s funny. When someone commits murder, I guess we should just give the murderer a big check and a yearly stipend. That’ll solve the problem.

                  Al Capone must’ve really had income inequality bad considering all the people he murdered.

                  1. Actually, I think it was just that the chief is incompetent, runs a shitty department, and was making excuses for why his officers couldn’t keep students safe on the campus of the largest employer in Los Angeles.

    2. Is it wrong to think that false accusations of rape are as bad as, if not worse than, the actual crime of rape that may or may not have originally occurred?

      It is sad because these people are pushing me to start from a position of not believing any accusations of rape that I hear. These people are doing an awful disservice to people who are actually raped. These people are garbage.

      1. Is it wrong to think that false accusations of rape are as bad as, if not worse than, the actual crime of rape that may or may not have originally occurred?

        False accusations are always bad, but rarely as bad as the actual crime. Are false accusations of murder worse than murder? Only if the accused is executed, I guess…

        False accusations are libel or slander, nothing more or less. They need to be judged based on the damage caused.

        1. I disagree here. The physical trauma may not be the same, but the mental trauma and stress is likely similar. You are faced with the actual prospect of spending years in a rape cage, and your name will now always be associated with being a rapist.

          If the false accusation leads to actual prison time, you will likely be actually raped. I think that it is definitely a worse crime if it reaches this point.

          1. Hence my assertion that false accusations need to be judged on the damage caused. I doubt “Barry” from Oberlin will suffer real, lasting harm from this episode because of all the public retractions. That’s very different from someone who is falsely convicted and spends 20 years in prison.

        2. The experience of witnessing a janitor falsely accused of indecent assaulting a patron in the basement of his workplace has cemented my subjective feeling that the false accusation is worse than the act.

          The poor guy was exonerated, yet how does he get his reputation back? There will always be people who believe he is a rapist. I don’t know how the SJW types he worked for reacted, but he quit his job within the next year and disappeared; I hear through the grapevine he was terrified that if he stayed in town that he could be charged again.

          In the meantime, if someone else does get assaulted, they have to worry that they won’t be believed, and based on the existence of past false allegations, the victims will have to endure the knowledge that some portion of the people they interact with will think they are making it up too.

          A rape has one victim. A false allegation has many.

          1. Part of the problem is what happens after exoneration. The false accuser should have a heavy burden of making sure the world knows the truth. They should have to take out radio, TV and newspaper ads. They should have to take out online ads that come up on any web content regarding the case. They should have to compensate their victim for wages lost and should have to personally apologize to anyone that the accused had a professional relationship with at the time of the accusation (employer, co-workers, etc.)

        3. but rarely as bad as the actual crime

          Unless you’re living under a bridge because you’re on a government list, or sitting in prison. No, false accusations are the worst because they deprive the innocent of liberty.

          1. They only do that because of stupid laws. In that case the government is the one depriving people of liberty, not the accuser. Besides, aren’t most people removed from the list if they are eventually proven innocent?

            1. But being falsely accused of rape does something that actually being raped doesn’t, destroys your reputation and relationships with your friends and colleagues. If you are raped, no one is going to stop being friends with you or shun you in this day and age. If you are accused of such, everyone will do that. I can’t imagine the horror of being convicted of such a crime when I was innocent. It would leave my friends and family with the horrible choice of either believing I am a complete monster or that I was suffering the worst sort of injustice one could suffer.

              As bad as it would be to see your son or daughter raped, think how much worse it would be to see them convicted of rape. Do you believe the court and think of your child as a monster or do you not believe and live every day knowing your child is in prison for a crime they didn’t commit?

              You should not discount the horrific harm that someone being convicted of a crime like rape does to their friends and family. Falsely accusing someone of that is an act of pure evil and much worse and more harmful than the crime itself. Rape can destroy a person. Falsely accusing someone of rape destroys the person and everyone around them.

              1. That’s why, on days when I’m feeling downright mean, I say that the punishment for making a false accusation of rape is that any rape accusation you make again for the rest of your life will be summarily dismissed.

            2. Besides, aren’t most people removed from the list if they are eventually proven innocent?


              I don’t have figures, but one is too many. I do remember some reportage here about the reluctance (refusal) of government to remove anyone from those lists, ever.

        4. It’s a case by case thing I would say. If the false allegation is determined to be false without much damage, the wrongly accused isn’t convicted, and it isn’t doesn’t read the media, then the wrongly accused was certainly wronged, but not as badly as if he had been raped.

          However, if the false accusation gets the man sent to prison for 10 years, then it is worse than rape. I’ll tell you right now, I’d rather be raped than have to spend ten years in prison; not to mention that the rest of you life is pretty much ruined as well.

          People who falsely accuse should simply be held responsible for all that was directly caused by their false allegation. I would even consider it possibly reasonable (not sure yet, haven’t thought it through) that if a woman gets a man imprisoned for rape, and he gets raped while in prison, that the woman should herself be charged for his being raped.

    3. “Why did she falsely paint her rapist as a republican, ”

      Because uuuhhh Bill Clinton ?

      Didn’t see much feminist backlash there did we ?

      So, there is no profit motive in blaming a fellow travler for rape.

  10. Republicans are waging a war on women, Democrats love women. Therefore, anyone who ever hurts a woman is a Republican. Simple logic you peanuts.

    1. Monty Python logic, love it.

  11. So, my wife got into a facebook argument with some friend of my cousin’s last night over that chick from the Big Bang Theory not claiming herself to be a feminist. Hilarity ensued:

    And do not ever, ever casually bring up rape. Ever.

    If by sex you regret you mean sex that was coerced, under the influence, or under abusive constructs that don’t leave a bruise, SURE, but haha, just maybe zip it if the R word pops into your mind.

    I am proud to be a feminist killjoy, survivor of repeated abuse and sexual assault/rape that I didn’t address for YEARS because of condescending remarks like yours and many others, and you would be hard pressed to out bake or out clean me. Do not show up with misconceptions you grabbed from toxic, patriarchal air, not from actual human beings, and try to make this harmful, damaging trend relatable. Please.

    1. and the best one, that really ties all the RadFem SJW bullshit together:

      I was a theatre major so your insinuation that I’m upset because she plays a dumb character is a really precious try.

      1. This is the only time I’ve ever heard the phrase ‘I was a theater major’ used as evidence of expertise.

        1. I know, I about died when I read that.

          1. Oh, you said “Thespian”.

            1. I thought he said “niggardly?”

        2. So . . . the theater major found bimbos in the curriculum and didn’t start a revolt?

      2. What?

        1. Basically, my wife called this girl on her “rape culture” bullshit and then said she understands where Cuoco is coming from because the RadFems have done so much damage to the feminism “brand.”

          1. Ooooohhhhhhh….

            1. Of course, since my wife is also a mother with a full time job she’s just a tool of the patriarchy now:

              Do not show up with misconceptions you grabbed from toxic, patriarchal air, not from actual human beings, and try to make this harmful, damaging trend relatable. Please.

              1. That woman is a Grade A idiot.

              2. My takeaway from that is that if you disagree with the radfems that you are automatically classified as non-human. Srsly, read her screed carefully.

                1. My takeaway from that is that most radfems were raised to believe that all men are pigs and are nothing more than simple-minded bigots.

          2. And so this woman decided to prove your wife’s point? That was generous of her.

          3. Was the quote you started the thread with your wife talking or the Radfem cousin? I am confused

            1. The RadFem, my cousin’s friend.

              1. Maybe I don’t speak Fem derp well enough. But I don’t think her statement was that bad. Frankly, I don’t understand what the hell she even means. Does she mean that you shouldn’t tell people you were raped just because you regret having sex? Does she mean that anyone who has sex by “coercive constructs”, whatever those are, was raped?

                These women are so muddle headed and such poor writers, I can’t even understand their writing enough anymore to be offended by it.

                1. I was unsure about that too. After my first reading it sounded like she was saying that regret after the fact is not rape.

                2. Of course you can’t understand what she is trying to say. They have tried to invent their own professional language in the hopes that it will lend credibility to their absurd arguments. They did an awful job of it. It isn’t creative and instead of clarity it obfuscates, which may be by design. Listening to them is worse than trying to read a creationist’s ‘science’ textbook, you know, one of those with illustrations of cave men riding on dinosaurs.

          4. Glad your wife is calling her out. Still, I’m disheartened about your cousin’s friend. I always liked to believe people like this didn’t actually exist in the real world, that they were like Scientologists, you’d never find one outside of Hollywood.

            I hope you cousin’s friend never holds a position of power, or ever has any children.

    2. “that chick from the Big Bang Theory not claiming herself to be a feminist.”

      Good for her. Her marriage will be better for it.

      1. Is it the tall blonde who said it or the short blond with the huge rack? The tall one seems like a fairly normal person and probably has a decent marriage from what I have seen.

        1. The tall one.

          1. That makes sense. From what I have seen, she seems pretty level headed and normal.

            1. Of course. She doesn’t hate her husband just because he has a penis. She gets paid well for her job, just goes about her business, and apparently gets along well with other people.

              It’s a stereotype, but invariably the progressives I’ve known in my life are pessimistic misanthropes who have nothing but contempt for most other people.

              1. Quite true. Granted, I’m a pessimistic misanthrope, but I don’t blame it on women or black people; in my case, it’s congenital.

        2. The weird one among the BBT cast is Mayim Bialik who (despite having a for real Phd in Neuroscience) is into all this bizarre pseudo-science stuff.

          1. Yes. She is the chick who was into the “communal bed” with her now ex husband and kids. She had her kids sleeping in the same bed with her and her husband until they were up into grade school. She swore that it was natural and didn’t affect her marriage.

            She is a total fruitloop.

            1. “now ex husband”

              Nope, didn’t affect her marriage at all.

            2. I can’t imagine my self-esteem being so low I would put up with that shit.

          2. I’ve come to the (admittedly probably incorrect) conclusion that “neuroscience” that isn’t clinical neurology is itself bizarre pseudo-science.

            Everything I’ve read of it stinks quite a lot of modern sciency phrenology.

            1. To be sure, some actually brilliant scientists are actually crazy. Cary Mullis, the guy invented the polymerase chain reaction, is an AIDS denialist and psychedelic drug enthusiast. Luc Montagnier, the guy who discovered HIV, is I believe currently practicing Homeopathy in Thailand or something.

              A common misconception is that people who are brilliant in science or mathematics are necessarily more likely to be right about things beyond their domain.

              I know this myself. I’m a grad student in a STEM field, and of course most people in these fields (in the academy at least) lean left (not as bad as the social sciences of course). They seem to reason “I’m smart, so of course I have to be a progressive.” They are scientifically intelligent, but the moment you try to discuss, say, minimum wage with them, you may as well be talking to a high school dropout. Why should we raise min wages? “Well, because it’s, like, nice. Poor people, Koch brothers, etc. Why would you not.” Then I mention the disemployment effects, inflation, among other reasons, and usually they’re stone silent in amazement that anyone who disagrees with them isn’t a retard like Jon Steward told them.

    3. I am proud to be a feminist killjoy

      No kidding. But, this actually drains the credibility from your claim to be a rape survivor.

      Because we’ve seen how being a feminist killjoy and a rape fabulist go hand-in-hand.

      1. we’ve seen how being a feminist killjoy and a rape fabulist go hand-in-hand.

        Doesn’t it though? You simply “win” any argument by declaring yourself the Most Victimized. Not accepting my worldview makes you a rape apologist. Are you a rape apologist, or are you going to agree with me?

        1. Here’s my answer to attempts to play the rape ‘get out of debate free’ card: As a rape victim (and one so clearly emotional about being a rape victim), your opinion on rape is actually less relevant, not more, because you are less able to be impartial and dispassionate. I swear it’ll make their heads explode.

          A good example to use with leftists: ask them if they think relatives of victims of 9/11 should be given special rights to decide what policy the US pursues with respect to terrorism in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks? Might their emotional connection not cloud their rational judgment, a particular concern since the policy would effect everyone, not just them?

          Or, when your interlocutor claims to have been raped you can always just say: ‘so was I.’ And keep a straight face. Fact is, if you apply the SJW definition of rape in a gender neutral manner, most sexually active men have been raped by women.

  12. It seems very possible to me?nearly proven, even?that Dunham’s memoir is not a memoir. Details were altered, events were discounted or embellished, characters were dropped or merged together, etc., in service of crafting a better story. There would be nothing particularly wrong with this; plenty of good writers use their own life experiences as a jumping off point before arriving at a more compelling plot.

    This is exactly what Dunham did. And the reason why it wasn’t published as “based on a true story” is because no one would have bought it. The standards of writing for novels is higher than it is for memoirs. You don’t have to be a good writer to get a memoir published, you just have to have an interesting life. Dunham’s problem is that she is not a good enough writer to write a novel that anyone would want to publish and her life is too boring to make for a memoir anyone would publish. So she did what a lot of failed writers have done, take her boring memoir and embellish it with enough made up facts to make it interesting enough to publish or depending how you look at it took her bad biography based novel and sold it as a memoir.

    That is really all there is too this story; Dunham is a bad writer and boring.

  13. “If other conservatives are insisting that Dunham wasn’t raped at all, then yes, they deserve criticism.”
    I don’t understand the need to turn the world into your giant group of mourners after allegedly being raped. In fact, that trait more than anything makes me automatically suspicious of the story. People who have actually been sexually violated tend to not want to tell anyone because 1. they feel embarrassment and shame and 2. it doesn’t feel good to relive it by talking about it.

    1. I don’t understand why insisting that Dunham is lying makes you deserving of criticism. Dunham clearly altered her story. She never seems to have told anyone at the time or made any efforts to prosecute the case. There is no evidence she ever mentioned this event to anyone before putting it in her book. What reason is there to believe she was ever raped and didn’t just lie about it to make her book more interesting?

    2. The only criticism they deserve is for not ignoring her.

  14. We are in the age of the fake scandal.


    1. I say, with absolute certainty:

      I agree with you. Everyone on this site completely agrees with you. 100%.

      1. Oh yeah. You win dude. We are all progressives now.

  15. If other conservatives are insisting that Dunham wasn’t raped at all, then yes, they deserve criticism.

    Why’s that? The burden of proof is on the alleged victim and in this case, the alleged victim has callously lied through her teeth and has a well-established record as a feminist ideologue with an axe to grind. Go ahead and criticize me when I say, she probably wasn’t raped and she is a liar. No one owes her the benefit of the doubt at this point, she burned that bridge. She’s a liar until proven truthful and that’s her own doing.

    1. Exactly. Why is the rest of the world obligated to trust her after she has told so many known lies?

      1. Because rape accusers are always beyond reproach and rape allegations are always sacrosanct declarations of truth.

      2. Because she is speaking a Larger Truth, you detail-Nazi.

    1. Am I the only one creeped out by the way that guy keeps emphasizing the word “woman” every time he says it?

  16. I don’t have a problem with this at all.

    You could probably tune up the framing a little (“Its not clear that Dunham was ever raped, but if she was . . .”)

    This is just nice reporting, really. Digging up the early version of a disputed manuscript, and publicizing what it says, is wrong, why, exactly?

    If NPR spawn wasn’t the rapist, well, he’s got a beef with Dunham for saying he was in her manuscript. Why is it wrong to investigate and report on a public controversy, as long as you do it accurately?

    If anything, my skepticism is trickled by the truthy flavor of her rapist (per the manuscript) being almost a cartoon of privileged lefty/proggy elitist spawn.

    1. If Dunham was raped, she has only herself to blame for no one believing her now. No one made her lie in her book. If she wants to tell her story and wants people to believer her, she should have told the truth in the first place. At this point, absent some kind of confession or third party witness stepping forward, there is no reason to believe anything Dunham says or to think of her as anything but a liar and publicity hound.

      1. If she showed up at the police station with half a broom stick broke off in her ass, I’d still call her a liar because that’s the kind of foul person she is. She’d probably claim to have just come from the Republican National Convention.

        1. I really, really didn’t need that mental image.

          1. The Republican National Convention isn’t that bad…

            1. If it resulted in a broom stuck up Dunham’s ass, it couldn’t be.

              1. If it involved Lena Dunham, it HAD to be.

              2. If it involved Lena Dunham, it HAD to be.

  17. my best friend’s step-sister makes $76 hourly on the internet . She has been fired from work for five months but last month her check was $15869 just working on the internet for a few hours. have a peek at this web-site……….
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  18. “Her HBO show, Girls?which somehow manages more self-awareness than Dunham seems capable of?even parodied her Republicans-are-Hitler approach to party politics.”

    Real-life Lena Dunham aside, I actually like the show. The main characters are painted as unsympathetic, loathsome idiots. And it can be quite funny. The one character who does evoke some sympathy is Ray, who is a breed apart from the rest of the odious, narcissistic, self-involved NYCers, and often drops into a scene to offer a little reality and common sense.

    1. The problem with the show is Dunham herself. I get it that you can see the show as a total indictment of the loathsome idiots the show portrays. The problem is that the creator, Dunham,and many of her fans don’t seem to see it that way. Her fans claim she is the “voice of her generation”. Neither Dunham nor her most ardent fans seem to be in on the joke. They seem to look at the show as giving voice to who they are. Those people on the show are not loathsome. They are their generation and the show is finally giving them a voice to show the world who they are.

      When you look at it that way, the show is horrific, funny or not.

      1. Watching Girls and identifying with the characters is akin to watching Curb Your Enthusiasm and getting a warm feeling from the asshole Larry David character. There is still a large group of squares with semi-active moral compasses out there who would find the behavior of the characters on Girls repellant. If there is an ardent fan base that identifies with these characters, perhaps there’s a subset that thinks: “Hmmm, that character is just like me. And she’s awful.”

        Anyhow, I watch the show for entertainment, so I win. If the swells get to laugh at all the hicks on Cops, Honey Boo Boo, etc., etc., perhaps this is the flipside.

        1. I understand that it might be funny. And I don’t blame you for watching it if you do. But it being funny doesn’t make it a “good show” or Dunham any less loathsome. It is like you say like watching Honey Boo Boo. It might be funny, but it is not good.

      2. I honestly don’t know how much of the show is intentional. When I first saw it I thought it was satirizing that lifestyle, but Dunham appears to live that lifestyle with little shame.

        Unless she is history’s greatest performance artist and is purposefully living this life as a satiric representation of NYC douchebags, I just can’t imagine she meant the show to be a satire.

        1. Watching the “Inside the Episode” (or whatever they’re called) that is after the show on HBO OnDemand is truly an eye-opening experience. I believed for a while that she was a brilliant performance artist taking the piss out of a shitty little subculture of wholly loathsome characters, but watching her explain what’s funny about the episode and the stories that inspired an individual episode disabused me of that notion.

          The worst character on the show is Marny. Marny is based on Dunham’s real life best friend, and this girl has actually appeared on the show (as an ancillary character). This tells me that Dunham and her circle of friends really don’t get what fucking terrible, completely unlikable assholes they are to normal people.

          And as John noted, the reason gawkerites and jezzies watch this show is that they identify with the characters themselves. That is really disturbing.

          1. It doesn’t surprise me. It’s a show tailored to progressive liberals and a large number of the progressive liberals I’ve known throughout my life are simply shitty people.

            It’s why, I suspect, radical feminists are so convinced that the world hates women…because they’re such horrible people that many of the people they interact with outside of their echo chambers treat them like assholes. They assume that it then must be a problem with the rest of the world, instead of just themselves.

    2. Hell, the few episodes I’ve seen makes me theorize that Dunham is sub-consciously projecting some kind of generational self-loathing. The ‘girls’ really are terrible, stupid people who should be completely unsympathetic to anyone with a functioning brain/morality. And then Dunham proceeds to act in a similar fashion in real life. It’s like Rousseau’s parenting and his writings on childhood development.

  19. There are really four factual statements remaining in play.

    1) That Dunham had a mutually impaired hook up with some guy at Oberlin, during which she asked him to use a condom twice and noticed twice that he hadn’t, and kicked him out the after she noticed the second time.

    2) That although she was into at the time, he was rougher than she consented to.

    3) That afterwards, she and another Oberlin student decided that the lack of conent to unprotected sex and rough sex rendered the event rape.

    4) That the guy was Oberlin’s “resident conservative.”

    I don’t think anyone doubts that 1-3 could have happened, and it’s even possible that 4 is true. If Gawker has actually identified the right guy, and he took the “conservative” side (by Oberlin standards) in his radio show, then it’s possible that it’s all basically true.

    I’m waiting for some more records on the “Spin Chamber” to come out – are there any Oberlin students who remember it? They’d almost have to be people who worked at the campus radio station at the time; I can’t think of anyone else who remembers campus radio shows.

    The guy’s partner is named in the Gawker article – I suppose the next step is to track him down.

    1. I am not seeing how one and two are anything approaching rape. To call that rape is to utterly devalue the word and completely insult actual victims of rape.

      Identity aside, the problem is that Dunham is a neurotic attention seeking moron for thinking what happened to her was rape.

      1. I think it’s an interesting question. IMHO, it would come down to what was said and what exactly happened, which makes it messy to prove, but you don’t have to prove a memoir.

        I don’t think many people would disagree that it would be wrong to intentionally lie to someone and say you were haveing protected sex when you knew you weren’t, especially if that was a condition of the whole thing.

        1. A lot of things are wrong. It is wrong to lie to someone and tell them that you will call them and then not. Being wrong doesn’t make it rape. Rape is a very specific thing.

          1. I’d have to check a criminal code. Rape in the third and fourth degree is often a lot less than you might think.

            There’s a separate tort called “sex by deception.” (For example, if you claim to be a woman’s husband who went off to war and was killed while serving in your unit.)

            IMHO, having unprotected sex while intentionally lieing about it is worse than that.

            1) There was a doctor who had sex with women while telling them that he was using his gloved fingers to examine them, not his johnson. I think we all agree that’s rape.

            2) Using your unclothed johnson while intentionally telling your partner that it is in fact clothed strikes me as some kind of tort. I’m not enough of a lawyer or linguist to say what kind, though.

            * Granted, given that both Dunham and her partner were supposedly drunk and high at the time, it’s a leap to say that he was intentionally doing it.

    2. Indulge me: why the hell should I care what the truth value of the remaining statements in doubt is, exactly? Even if everything else she says about the sexual encounter is true, it’s not rape and she didn’t see it as rape. Why the hell should I care that some guy had sex rougher than Dunham would have liked? It says nothing about society and it is not a violent act that needs to be punished. In fact, the only practical action that can be taken to reduce these incidents would be to move away from hookup culture and towards a model where both partners get to know each other well enough to minimize such confusions *before* having sex. Something tells me this is not what Dunham had in mind, and is at any rate not something within my power to compel.

      There is no story anymore, now that the salient details have been removed. The only story is that women like Dunham are not able to have their cake and eat it, and are pissed that some men won’t indulge this fantasy.

      1. Indeed. Even with Dunham’s sensationalizing, it’s a weak case to argue for anything, other than maybe how men are jerks. It’s not indicative of a rape culture, or bad collegiate culture, or anything like that. It was a bad sexual experience where, it sounds like, no one really got hurt. At worst, this guy was a pushy asshole, but he did leave when she told him no.

        1. He did not. As he was fictional. Also, the whole event was fixtional. Even the sickest, most masochistic piece of shit wouldn’t rape that pile of offal. Even with a gun to his head.

    3. 1 and 2 either aren’t rape at all, or rape is a just a violation of good etiquette.

  20. Even if her much “amended” story is true in the detail of sex, was she raped? He put on a condom and at some point she says she saw that he had taken it off.

    Is that rape?

    How many women who lied about contraception have been charged with rape?

    1. Yes. And what is “he was rougher than she would have liked” even mean? How the hell was he supposed to know that? Did she tell him to stop and he didn’t? And even if he didn’t, she didn’t tell him to stop having sex with her. The sex was still consensual.

      You really can’t overstate how harmful this kind of nonsense is. Not only does it debase one of the most serious crimes in existence and slander innocent people, but also it harms women by convincing them to think of events that they otherwise would have written off as just unpleasant experiences and bad luck with men and forgotten as horrific life altering tragedies. And feminism is supposed to be pro women? Convincing women who would otherwise be happy and well adjusted that they are the victims of a horrific crime is helping them?

      1. Also, convincing women that every man is a brutal rapist in waiting is not helping them either.

      2. Used to be pro women, now it’s anti-men and gender traitors.

      3. it doesn’t help these women. It helps people who stand to gain if people think there is a rape epidemic: activists.

  21. “Dunham’s memoir is not a memoir. Details were altered, events were discounted or embellished, characters were dropped or merged together, etc., in service of crafting a better story.”

    You know who else crafted a phony past for themselves to fit perfectly into a political narrative that had a troubled relationship with reality?

    1. Barrack Obama?

    2. Towely?

    3. Every poitician ever?

  22. Let me indulge in a little blatant ad homming…

    The friend that convince Dunham this possible sexual encounter was rape? Audrey Gelman. Care to guess who she dated for three years? Terry Richardson, King Scumbag of Fashion, who has been accused repeatedly of coercing his models into having sex.

    1. Wow, Richardson looks like someone sent over from central casting to play the “pervert photographer”. Talk about living up to the stereotype. That guy looks like someone you would catch looking in your teenage daughter’s bedroom window.

      And Gelman is not bad looking. I hate to be harsh, but why the hell was she dating that weirdo? What the hell did she think was going to happen?

      1. Sounds like she thought she was going to be on a cover.

        1. Then maybe they both got what the wanted. Who are we to object to mutually beneficial business transaction.

          1. Well, some of the women Richardson allegedly pulled this stunt on were legally underage, so I’d say that there’s something to object to.

            For the ones legally able to consent, however, it’s their own fault if they fucked the guy because they wanted to be famous.

        1. God Gelman looks so cute and innocent in that picture. It is like a real life Star 80. It is a miracle he didn’t murder her with a shotgun before doing himself in.

          1. Being a cool punk rocker at age 50 and beyond only works if you’re Iggy Pop.

            1. That guy was never cool.

      2. Also, Dunham admits that the Marnie character on Girls is based on Gelman. Marnie, the delusional one that breaks up with her perfectly nice boyfriend in order to sleep with a scummy artist that treats her like shit and she spends the entire series spiraling into the abyss.

        Also, Jezebel has never mentioned this connection to Richardson, despite being obsessed with Dunham and Richardson. Curious.

        1. Gelman has some serious self esteem and image issues if she was dating that guy.

          1. To engage in a bit more stereotyping…

            Most of the highly attractive, single women I’ve met since college tended to be insecure basket cases. The ones who aren’t tend to get married in college and stay married.

            As the saying goes…you want to date 9s and 10s, but marry 7s and 8s.

    2. What the hell is a political consultant and how can one get paid enough as one to afford to live in New York City?
      How do people get these jobs that appear to be completely useless and yet manage to get people to pay them a six figure salary to do them?

      1. They are trust fund babies Hazel. They get checks from their parents.

      2. Feckless rich kids are Oberlin’s bread and butter. It’s basically Oral Roberts University for the Northeast DNC.

        1. Its so sad. One of my favorite authors, Bruce Catton, the civil war historian went to Oberlein back in the day. And the great Civil War hero Joshua Chamberlain was president of Bowdoin College, which is now as bad as Oberlein.

          1. Bruce Catton was awesome…loved his books as a kid.

        2. To be fair, I had two cousins go there. Granted, they had merit scholarships to the Conservatory…

      3. Hazel, ya ever hear of Tommy Vietor’s rise to brilliance? Probably, but to recap, he started off, we kid you not, as a driver of Senator Obama’s van. From there, he got promoted throughout the 2008 campaign, and wound up in the Odministration as a National Security Council spokeshole at the age of 32.

        He quit to form his own political communications firm. One of his first clients was Hillary Clinton, who hired him after her book was published to handle some of the Benghazi criticism.

        So the answer to your question is, have a driver’s license and a Democrat Party membership.

    3. Reading those wiki entries…. Jesus. Is there a term, like “red diaper baby”, for folks who are destroyed by their upbringing, except substitute a hip/bicoastal/NY/Hollywood/artist upbringing for a communist upbringing?

      1. In fairness, for all of their privilege in life, and they had plenty, what chance did Dunham and Gelman have to grow up to be anything but neurotic idiots?

        Because I am biased towards pretty women, I find Gelman’s case to be particularly sad. That woman is fucked for life. Any woman with her prospects who would date that slime ball must be damaged in a grave and unrepairable way.

      2. “Trustafarian” comes close, I think.

        1. There may be some crossover, but Trustafarians are often the spawn of hedge fund managers, doctors, and such, who parlay their parents’ wealth into overpriced bachelor’s degrees, smelly clothes, white guilt, etc. The members of the “transgressive” shithead-artist diaspora often don’t even have enough money to spoil their kids with; they have to rely on their loserdom alone.

      3. I believe the term you’re looking for is “spoiled little shits”.


      4. Is there much of a difference?

    4. Haha, crazy. She dated Terry Richardson? For three years? It’s so tempting to read so much into that…

      1. How many porno shots of Gelman do you think Richardson has on his computer?

    5. SugarFree: good find.

  23. This is why I think we need some other words for lesser degrees of unwanted sex. Like “molest” or “grope”. Maybe she was “molested”, just not “raped”.

    1. We don’t need those terms Hazel. We have them. The problem is that idiots like Dunham have stopped using them and are calling every experience they don’t like “rape”.

      1. It’s similar to how racism has become an all encompassing term for what used to be called prejudice, bigotry, and a whole list of other things.

        1. It’s just reductio ad Hitlerum. Calling someone a “rapist” is much stronger than calling them a “groper”.

        2. Exactly. It’s politically convenient for leftists to stretch the terms “racist” and “rape” (and “fascist” etc.) out of all recognizable shape.

    2. Maybe she just made the whole thing up.


  24. Does it really matter if it was him? I mean, he is a man and he could have done it.

    1. Whats this? He has a dick? He is still in possession of the weapon. Guilty! Guilty!

    2. Hey even if he didn’t rape her he raped someone right?

      1. Didn’t you mean to type ‘she’? Clearly any sexual encounter with Lena Dunham has to involve force or some loss of capacity for consent.

        Of the victim, not Dunham. No way anyone willingly fucks that. I’m not even sure I could be drunk enough to let that thing blow me and still be capable of an erection.

  25. “It seems very possible to me?nearly proven, even?that Dunham’s memoir is not a memoir. Details were altered, events were discounted or embellished, characters were dropped or merged together, etc., in service of crafting a better story. There would be nothing particularly wrong with this; plenty of good writers use their own life experiences as a jumping off point before arriving at a more compelling plot.”

    I’m not saying she wasn’t raped. Maybe she was.

    And then again, maybe Dunham raped a Republican on campus. We certainly don’t know anything because of anything she wrote in her book.

    I just know that I didn’t give a shit what Lena Dunham wrote about anything before, and if I ever spend another moment of my life reading about, thinking about, or commenting about Lena Dunham, it’ll be another moment squandered–that I could have used to think about something more interesting.

    Like fart jokes.

  26. To reiterate an important point that often gets lost as we discuss this:

    Even if every word Dunham wrote was true, she wasn’t raped.

    The encounter she describes isn’t rape.

    So it doesn’t matter who Barry really was.

  27. Look as a woman I can say with certainty that all sex with men in cowboy hats at Oberlin must be rape.

    1. In LA, if you walk around with a cowboy hat, it usually means you’re gay.

  28. God, she looks hot in that picture.

    I’m surprised I’m the first to bring this up.

    1. No she doesn’t. She looks made-up and airbrushed. Wide nose, almost no neck, shoulders like a linebacker…

      I’ll pass.

    2. She looks like Beaker from the Muppets

      1. Beaker put on an extra hundred pounds and was beaten to a pulp with an ugly stick? Then horribly disfigured on the way home in a flaming auto wreck?

        The more you know.

    3. I think it’s time for your bartender to cut you off.


  29. Am I the ONLY person who read this and went… “Who the hell is Lena Dunham?”

    I don’t even pay attention to crazy people anymore.

  30. my best friend’s step-sister makes $76 hourly on the internet . She has been fired from work for five months but last month her check was $15869 just working on the internet for a few hours. have a peek at this web-site……….
    ????? http://www.jobs700.com

    1. Was your best friend’s step-sister raped or Lena Dunham?

  31. I was raped by Lena Dunham! Look at me! Pay attention to me! HEY, I SAID I WAS RAPED! I HAVE SERIOUS THINGS TO SAY! RAAAAAPPPPEEEE!

    1. I would rather die than admit to my cock touching that fucking bitch on her slimy cunt, or anywhere else on that shambling pile of ooze she calls a body. I see her less of a person and more of a non-humanoid creature that would be included in Dungeons & Dragons monster Manual.

  32. “Gawker deserves criticism for showing so little regard for a real person “

    I think its a stretch to call Lena Dunham a “real person”

    (*note: yes, i know he’s talking about the ‘named accused-rapist’)

    I didn’t see whether it was addressed – but what if this Ungar fellow was OK with it? would that then be journalistically kosher?

  33. my best friend’s step-sister makes $76 hourly on the internet . She has been fired from work for five months but last month her check was $15869 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    have a peek at this web-site…………….. http://www.netjob70.com

  34. I think this idea of trying to discern where the exactly lines of ‘journalistic ethics’ lie here is… a bit muddled

    Start from the beginning =

    – Low-grade celebrity writes high-dollar tell-all memoir where she claims to have been raped, and provides detail sufficient to implicate at least a few identifiable people

    I’d think the root issue is whether or not the claimed events were true.

    Critics of these inquiries seem unconcerned whether the claims are true or not.

    e.g. “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*

    * = by writing a multi-million$ memoir?

    “…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.”

    ‘inspiration for a character’?

    The issue of whether or not there is any ‘factual basis’ for the claims made in the book seems to be written off entirely as ‘irrelevant’.

    Yes, “leaving out Ungar’s name would have been the wiser thing to do”. I hope he sues (or has some basis to).

    But it seems that ‘critics’ here object to the entire idea of attempting to prove something “true or false” at all.

    i.e. ‘some things are not to be questioned’

  35. Books that feature evil Democrats don’t get published, books that feature evil Republicans hit the best seller list.

    1. There are many republicans that are good.

  36. Does it bother anyone else that Gawker felt the need to “out” someone over something as sensitive as the subject of rape in light of what happens to “outed” people once the cyber lynch mobs go after them?

    Obviously Gawker isn’t exactly what any self-respecting journalist would consider to be journalism, but your average internet reader is becoming more and more used to Gawker style pieces which sets a really bad precedent as well as a taste for more of the ilk that Gawker engages in.

    1. Does it bother anyone else that Gawker felt the need to “out” someone over something as sensitive as the subject of rape in light of what happens to “outed” people once the cyber lynch mobs go after them?

      The people who consume Gawker are the cyber lynch mob.

  37. “Who Is Lena Dunham’s Rapist?”

    Her fevered imagination.

    1. Appears Lena is very eager to brutally rape our common sense.

      1. And our eyes, with her hideous body.

  38. What in the hell? Was this an attempt by Lena Dunham to in some way handle what happened. This entire matter has been handled irresponsibly by Dunham since it first occurred. She should have reported what happened. No I am NOT blaming the victim. I am saying she did not report it and now she is making what could be wildly misconstrued statements about persons involved. I’m glad I wasn’t within the 15 mile wide area of suspicion she drew. This whole affair reeks of Lena Dunham’s irresponsibility.

  39. Whole lotta words for something that probably never happened.

  40. Across all their sites, Gawker pays the bills with the yellowest of yellow “journalism.” Their writers are journalists only in that sense. They have proven time and again they’ll post literally anything for attention and page views, so this doesn’t surprise me at all.

    In conclusion: fuck Lena Dunham, but motherfuck Gawker.

  41. Here’s why I think Dunham wasn’t raped. The day after the alleged rape, she saw him again, and “He didn’t say Hi to me.” (I paraphrase, but this is very close to what she said).

    Didn’t say “Hi” to me? That’s not what a rape victim says when she runs into her rapist the next day. A real rape victim would have run away screaming, “There he is! Arrest him!” Not “He didn’t say Hi to me.” That’s what someone who had feelings for her “rapist” would have said. It’s what someone who was not raped would say.

    My conclusion: Dunham may have a mild mental disorder, mild enough that most people don’t notice it or chalk her behavior up to a quirky personality.

    On the issue of sexual assault:

    “The Sexual Harassment Quagmire: How To Dig Out” http://malemattersusa.wordpres…..-quagmire/

    1. “My Rapist Ignored Me Afterward”

      That sounds like the old joke about the jewish ladies in the catskills resort =

      “The food here is *terrible*!”
      “I *know*! and such small portions

    2. Perhaps this is the reason why she accused him of rape: because she slept with him and he scorned her after the fact.

      Makes more sense than him raping her and then her trying to say hi to him the next day and being disappointed in his lack of reciprocation.

      1. I would be horrified if, after a night of heavy drinking, and it would have to be heave drinking, I woke up next to……….that. Scorn wouldn’t beging to cover it.
        I would liken it to having an unwanted drunken homosexual experience that one would want to expunge from memory forever.

  42. So, um, why are you quoting his name (and link to that tripe)?

  43. I have no idea who Lena Dunham is. Should I bother to find out?

    1. That depends on the on the accuracy of your username.

      If you’re what passes for “liberal” in today’s America, you’ll probably love her. Her upbringing was apparently unhealthy to an extreme but also highly indulgent. She’s profoundly damaged and so painfully “progressive” in her politics that she’s not quite in touch with reality. So, she’s like a lot of today’s far left “voices.”

      If you’re a classical liberal, or if the username is ironic, I apologize for having just introduced her to you.

      1. [W]hat passes for “liberal” in today’s America is one who is predominantly illiberal.

    2. I envy you. Seriously.

  44. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for 74 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail
    ——— http://www.paygazette.com

  45. “Dunham’s memoir is not a memoir. Details were altered, events were discounted or embellished, characters were dropped or merged together, etc., in service of crafting a better story. There would be nothing particularly wrong with this; plenty of good writers use their own life experiences as a jumping off point before arriving at a more compelling plot. She should have noted, however, that Not That Kind of Girl is merely based on a true story.”

    Let me help you, the word you are searching for is FICTION. As in “Dunham’s memoir is not a memoir, it is a fiction.”

    Now, let me assist you again, statements of fiction, represented as statements of fact are call LIES. People who tell lots of lies are called liars. As in, “Dunham’s alleged memoir is a collection of lies and Dunham is a liar.”

    There not, wasn’t that easy?

    1. False accusations are certainly a type of fiction; malevolent fiction.

  46. So, was she raped by Bill Clinton?


  47. The book identifies the perp as “Barry,” the campus’s resident… future POTUS?

  48. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  49. my best friend’s step-aunt makes $67 hourly on the internet . She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her check was $20596 just working on the internet for a few hours. you can try this out………….
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  50. Ugh. I can’t fucking stand Lena Dunham. We doesn’t she go away and die somewhere?

    1. Exactly. Instead we have the tragic suicide of Robin Williams. I would MUCH rather have him alive than that Dunham creature.

  51. my best friend’s mother-in-law makes $68 /hour on the computer . She has been fired for 10 months but last month her payment was $15958 just working on the computer for a few hours. view it now…….

  52. “the book comes with a general warning that “some details and identifying details have been changed.” ”

    “The book identifies the perp as “Barry,” the campus’s resident conservative, who wore cowboy boots and worked at the library.”

    The book IDENTIFIES him in a certain way, with the disclaimer that IDENTIFYING details have been changed. In other words, with that disclaimer, the she’s very clearly saying he’s not named Barry, not the campus’s resident conservative, never wore cowboy boots and didn’t work at the library.

    Mock outrage is not particularly pleasant even when it’s done towards a liberal.

    1. If someone wrote a memoir about their years at Oberlin, which coincided with Lena Dunham’s, and wrote about a homely and dumpy “Lena” who had a wacky artist father and who was plagiarist and burglar, would that be OK? Because a disclaimer is a weak defense if I make defamatory statements about someone with an unusual name and identifying details that point to a specific person.

  53. I highly doubt this bitch was raped. I think she made it up to spice up what must be a real snooze of a read. If anything, she should be investigated for molesting her sister. Based on what came out about that last month. She is likely some kind of pedophile.

    She is also a talentless hack, and a schlub.

  54. my neighbor’s ex-wife makes $68 /hour on the internet . She has been fired from work for eight months but last month her paycheck was $16325 just working on the internet for a few hours. check out this site…


  55. Our gun rights are bad but not terrible like in Britain. And they have me to help fix it Hello mate I would like to see tutorial content on mobile application like whatsapp status check out the exmple of the site hereBest updated whatsapp status for love

  56. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  57. I Got Hooked On Having An Online Business Almost A Decade Ago When I Created An Online Course And Made My First.


  58. I Got Hooked On Having An Online Business Almost A Decade Ago When I Created An Online Course And Made My First.


  59. Why does Mr. Soave happily print Mr. Ungar’s name in the complete absence of any evidence that any sexual encounter of any kind–let alone a rape–even occurred, yet refrain from using Jackie Coakley’s full name in the same piece, even though it’s now abundantly apparent that she fabricated her UVA rape story?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.