Lena Dunham Didn’t Molest Her Sister, STFU

I don’t care for Lena Dunham. I don’t like Girls. I don’t think she’s some bold, fresh feminist voice as much as a bourgeois Bohemian high on her own farts. And if I’m being a frank, asshole purveyor of an Internet boob site, her constantly naked box-body offends me. That being said, you have to be a complete fucking idiot to think she molested her little sister. An accusation that started in the right-wing echo chamber after Truth in Revolt aggregated a National Review article referencing passages from Not That Kind of Girl where Lena Dunham way too openly, and more than likely overly-fictitiously, details her early days of sexual curiosity with her body as well her younger sister’s. Which is completely normal shit, but we’ll get back to how she fucked that all up in a minute. So during their initial post, Truth in Revolt who incorrectly reported Lena’s age as 17 during her “exploration” with her toddler sister when really she was seven which makes a world of difference. Except it was too late for a correction, which Truth In Revolt did add to the post, because by then the lie was already out, and now my site, and I’m sure countless others, are flooded with jackass trolls accusing Lena Dunham of being a child molester because “these feminist bitches have to go down.” And the amazing part is that there are dozens of legitimate criticisms to be made about Lena Dunham writing about her little sister’s vagina because it even made liberal feminists go, “I’m sorry, she parted what now?” but the fuckhead conservosphere jumped right to sexual abuse even though these are the same assholes fanning the flames of #GamerGate. Via The Frisky:

The way Dunham tells these stories is what’s most bothersome to me. Having been a fan of her work for awhile, I’m fairly used to her hipster-y, ho-hum approach to writing about taboo subject matters, and that’s what I think she was going for here, but with pretty gross results. She’s also admittedly prone to exaggeration, so I wouldn’t be surprised if these stories have been expanded upon to be much more extreme than they actually were. (In all seriousness, does a one-year-old girl have the dexterity and mobility to put anything inside her vagina? It took me multiple tries to figure out putting in a tampon at age 14, for goodness sakes.) That said, I agree with Luvvie that the way she describes “parting” her infant sister’s vagina is pretty goddamn stomach-turning. I wouldn’t say that, based on these stories, Dunham molested her sister, but I do think she exhibits big-time issues with boundary crossing that has continued into adulthood in the publication of these stories as humorously intended fodder for her book.

So basically Lena Dunham more than likely over-exaggerated what should’ve been innocent childhood exploration to try and look like she made a totes clever observation about grooming her sister like a child molester. In fact, these are her exact words:

“Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl, I was trying.”

Which on its face is a fucked-up way to describe the weird, sexual experimentation kids do at a young age, but it’s also pretty evident she’s doing it through the reflexive, comedice lens of going, “Jesus Christ, I was a messed up little kid” and then exaggerating it for dramatic attention to the point where it blew up in her face. Not to mention, people with vaginas tell me the pebble thing is almost impossible, but understanding all of that involves nuance and critical comprehension skills, and I might as well have told the Internet to delete all of its porn. Anyway, here’s Lena Dunham’s response to this shitfest:

And here’s my special message to everyone who just made me quasi-defend Lena Dunham:

THE SUPERFICIAL | AboutFacebookTwitter

Photo: Getty