In case you missed it, writer/actress and former Batman Returns villain Lena Dunham recently became the subject of controversy after describing sexual misadventures with her younger sister. When National Review observed that not only was the Emperor Penguin not wearing clothes, but the Emperor Penguin had also admitted to sexually molesting a sibling, Dunham instantly descended into a “rage spiral“, apparently indignant that describing yourself as behaving like a sexual predator might just result in people actually calling you a sexual predator. Naturally, being the TARGET of moral outrage doesn’t sit well with people accustomed only to making OTHERS the object of sanctimonious castigation, something Lena herself tried in the selfsame autobiographical book by recounting another past sexual experience in college in such a manner as to subtly imply she might have been raped by a young Republican.
The irrational cat ladies populating the lefty media immediately panicked with terror that social shaming could strike one of their own, and rallied the troops to mount a fevered, uncoordinated, and thoroughly illogical defense of their pasty white child rapist cohort. Dunham’s own poor victimized sister opined that it’s not really molestation if you
spin the story “narrate your own experience” in a startling display of ad hoc rationalization and subtexted admission of wrong-doing that would be described anywhere else as textbook Stockholm Syndrome. Grace Dunham also identifies as “queer”, a thoroughly unsurprising orientation given how many times she was rampantly finger-banged as a toddler. Huffington Post beta-cuck and rape-apologizer extraordinaire Ryan Wach got off his dildo long enough to whine that “the allegations about Lena Dunham are bad for everyone“, while running with Grace’s idiotic solipsistic nonsense that crime is in the mind of the victim:
“For those who are less familiar with Grace’s terminology, this basically means that the power to determine what constitutes sexual abuse rests entirely with the accuser, not with the National Review or the Twittersphere. It’s a doctrine that’s meant to give agency to individual victims and not every dude on 4Chan with a keyboard and an opinion.”
* Cool story bro, so you’re saying that in this ideal relativistic world a woman can be violently raped on video, but if she’s too traumatized and scared to come forward, then she wasn’t “really assaulted”? On the other hand, if a crazed delusional shrew like Dunham flippantly accuses a random guy from college of roughing her up in the bedroom, then we need to launch a formal investigation. *There is no such thing as objective law and order in this scheme, just victims braying accusations at each other. To Ryan, the entire childhood molestation episode is also entirely insignificant anyway while Dunham’s contradictory accounts of sexual experiences in college make HER the victim in all this. I’m not sure how low your testosterone levels have to be to reach such a pathetically cuckolded conclusion, but when your premise begins with white-knighting for a depraved child molester, it seems like the only final destination.
Tim Herrera at the Washington Post pretended not to understand why National Review even covered Dunham’s misdeeds, but given the amateurish content of his blog post, perhaps he really is that stupid. (Hint, people who aren’t brain damaged degenerates find accounts of childhood sexual abuse revolting.) Interestingly enough, most of the articles in defense of Dunham are written by men, including this gem in which the author says that bribing your sister for intimate contact with candy and describing it as “sexual predator tricks” was just a poor choice of words, and she should’ve used the analogy of “doggy treats” instead. Yes, because comparing your sister to a pet dog that you’re trying to sexually experiment with is a vast improvement over just tacitly admitting you’re a sexual predator. Much time was also spent on trying to imply that this was just a shaming operation by rich white evil Republicans and “baggers” trying to smear the good image of a brave and intelligent liberal female.
I have a much stronger dose of well poison: Why are elitist, bourgeois white males frantically jumping to the defense of a white woman who literally admitted to sexually experimenting with her own sister? Can you say, “white privilege“?
I know it’s tempting to scratch your head over the hypocrisy of this whole affair, or to ponder how someone can honestly get irate that they were flamed for describing their own conduct quite literally as “anything a sexual predator would do”, but keep in mind, we aren’t dealing with rational people. These are demented, mentally damaged degenerates with just enough expensive education to run a rationalization algorithm to explain away all their appalling deeds. The Dunham family is in reality not much different than the stereotypical group of white trash child molesters imagined to live in every shack in West Virginia, and given their appearances, might even be of the same genetic stock. Lena’s description of her horrifying childhood resembles something out of one of Clive Barker’s horror novels, while the family itself looks like the sort of shambling inbred hicks imagined by H.P. Lovecraft. This is the type of shit that would give Stefan Molyneaux actual nightmares.
The defense of Lena Dunham is pretty much like the tribal instinct of any degenerate group of incestuous trash; when one of their own gets hung in a fence and starts squealing like a stuck pig, the rest of the clan comes running to help. Of course in this case the mud is a little too deep and the wire is a little too strong as Dunham herself has begun issuing apologies, not that this has stopped any number of liberal kinfolk from trying to pull her fat ass out of the quagmire anyway.
I don’t know about you, but I hope to enjoy the squeals of this chubby white sow for quite some time to come.