Dan H. Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 I dunno, you could say the same thing about Burroughs or Hunter S, (not at all comparing her to those gentlemen by the way) but within context anything can be interesting, even if it's vile or destructive.Again I haven't read the book, so maybe she was making some grander point about children's sexuality. However it seems like even if she was, she went about it in a way that was more offensive than artistic or inspired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roush Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 If writing keeps her away from taking her clothes off, I'm all for it lol 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facekicker Posted November 4, 2014 Author Share Posted November 4, 2014 I dunno, you could say the same thing about Burroughs or Hunter S, (not at all comparing her to those gentlemen by the way) but within context anything can be interesting, even if it's vile or destructive.Again I haven't read the book, so maybe she was making some grander point about children's sexuality. However it seems like even if she was, she went about it in a way that was more offensive than artistic or inspired.Lets not bring actual literary genius into a thread about Dunham. PLEASE MAN! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 If you have actual talent then you can get away with fucking kids I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amir Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 If you have actual talent then you can get away with fucking kids I guess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l0FMm-2bJ0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facekicker Posted November 4, 2014 Author Share Posted November 4, 2014 If you have actual talent then you can get away with fucking kids I guess. Was that in response to my post about literary genius? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxlisOld Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 If you have actual talent then you can get away with fucking kids I guess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l0FMm-2bJ0All questions, philosophical or practical, can be answered by Jim Jeffries' stand-up. Go ahead, any question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 If you have actual talent then you can get away with fucking kids I guess. Was that in response to my post about literary genius?Pretty much any kind of perceived genius or talent. Michael Jackson wrote Billy Jean whereas Gary Glitter ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facekicker Posted November 5, 2014 Author Share Posted November 5, 2014 If you have actual talent then you can get away with fucking kids I guess. Was that in response to my post about literary genius?Pretty much any kind of perceived genius or talent. Michael Jackson wrote Billy Jean whereas Gary Glitter .......Nah my comment was more to do with mentioning real talented writers (Burroughs, Thompson) in the same vein as dipshits like Dunham. It had nothing to do with excusing kiddie fiddlers because of any talent they may or may not have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I've got two sisters. We never inspected each other's private parts. And if they inspected each other's, they certainly aren't bragging and laughing about it later in life. My two babies are only a year apart. But if they had the same age difference as Dunham and her sister, I would NOT condone the older one using the younger one as her sexual experiment or toy. If she wants to play with and explore a vagina - she should do it with her own. Your own sexual experiences are really irrelevant and uninteresting. I don't really care about what you did as a kid and it can never be used to define what is and isn't normative behaviour. People are different, so are kids. What is considered normative sexual behaviour in kids is pretty broad and encompasses lots of different acts. Curiosity about genitals is wide-spread (and lack of this would be considered abnormal) and it is normal for siblings at certain ages to explore this. I agree that writing about this in her book was ill-adviced, and judging from the outraged reactions from mostly the conservative media, I think Durham agrees, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) That was one incident. The other incidents occurred when she was 13 and her sister was 7. There was definitely sexually motivated grooming of her sister going on. That's an offence. Makes me wonder what else was going on in that household, given that most children learn this behaviour from adults, usually as a result of having been victims of abuse themselves.Finger your 7 year old sister and it's "just one of those things" if you're female but attempt to strike up a conversation with a random woman in the street if you're a bloke and you're a sexual predator who must be destroyed! According to Soulmonster it is perfectly "normal" for an older sister to do this to her much younger sister, and specifically in this case, it's all good because the CHILD "mostly" gave her consent. It is within the range of sexual behaviours that is considered normative for kids at certain ages, yes. But don't take my word for it, take the child psychologists' (I have quoted one earlier in this thread). And consent is incredibly important to separate abuse from non-abuse. Within the limits of sexual behaviour among kids, one specific act could be considered abuse if it was non-consentual but normal if it wasn't. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone, it goes for adult sexual behaviour, too. So...Soulmonster thinks a 6 year old can consent to anything? I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old, and based on the discussions and arguments we have about brushing teeth, getting dressed, playing nicely, not hitting me with hammers, and so on, it seems they can't consent to anything! I really hope it changes at 6. Edited November 5, 2014 by SoulMonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Seems to me that Dunham gets a pass on this for being a self-declared feminist and the poster girl role model of a generation* To the extent it is actually true, I believe she gets a pass on this because most people realize there is nothing really to be outraged about. Again, if you guys insist on this being a problem, please refer to literature that says it is. We should be way passed having uninformed opinions on this, now, and just acting on gut feelings. Personally, I think a lot of the outrage stems from antipathy against Durham (I don't even know who she is) and that it is chosen as a new battle ground in the currently ongoing war between "feminists" and "anti-feminists", as well between "conservatives" and "liberals". So not so much real concern for the well-being of Durham's sister as it is driven by vicarious motives, I am afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lio Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Personally, I think a lot of the outrage stems from antipathy against Durham (I don't even know who she is)Yes, it's Dunham, not Durham. (Don't know her either.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netcat Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 damn. seems that all but one posters in this thread are conservative anti-feminist bastards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 damn. seems that all but one posters in this thread are conservative anti-feminist bastards Don't forget anti-Dunhams! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) If you have actual talent then you can get away with fucking kids I guess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l0FMm-2bJ0 All questions, philosophical or practical, can be answered by Jim Jeffries' stand-up. Go ahead, any question.Question: Why is Jim Jeffries not funny?Answer: Cuz hes a cunt. Edited November 5, 2014 by Lennie Godber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I have seen a lot of Jim Jefferies lately. Great stuff! I also started to watch Dana Cook - or however it is spelled - and that was awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 If you have actual talent then you can get away with fucking kids I guess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l0FMm-2bJ0 All questions, philosophical or practical, can be answered by Jim Jeffries' stand-up. Go ahead, any question.Question: Why is Jim Jeffries not funny?Answer: Cuz hes a cunt.Jim Jeffries is fucking brilliant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Jim Jeffries is fucking brilliant.All thats mans man stuff is so forced and put on it's unbelievable. And most of his fanbase are like that too, bunch of new millenium soft lads that reckon themselves geezers when they're really designer beer drinking poofs. That kind of comedy belongs to Bernard Manning and people like that, they did it best. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roush Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Jim Jeffries is fucking brilliant.All thats mans man stuff is so forced and put on it's unbelievable. And most of his fanbase are like that too, bunch of new millenium soft lads that reckon themselves geezers when they're really designer beer drinking poofs. That kind of comedy belongs to Bernard Manning and people like that, they did it best.Wait, what's a poof? Is that like a queef, or pussy fart? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highvoltage Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Honestly? I was more grossed out by the passage than outraged over it.Talk about a serious over-share... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelica Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 That was one incident. The other incidents occurred when she was 13 and her sister was 7. There was definitely sexually motivated grooming of her sister going on. That's an offence. Makes me wonder what else was going on in that household, given that most children learn this behaviour from adults, usually as a result of having been victims of abuse themselves.Finger your 7 year old sister and it's "just one of those things" if you're female but attempt to strike up a conversation with a random woman in the street if you're a bloke and you're a sexual predator who must be destroyed! According to Soulmonster it is perfectly "normal" for an older sister to do this to her much younger sister, and specifically in this case, it's all good because the CHILD "mostly" gave her consent.It is within the range of sexual behaviours that is considered normative for kids at certain ages, yes. But don't take my word for it, take the child psychologists' (I have quoted one earlier in this thread). And consent is incredibly important to separate abuse from non-abuse. Within the limits of sexual behaviour among kids, one specific act could be considered abuse if it was non-consentual but normal if it wasn't. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone, it goes for adult sexual behaviour, too.Calling a child a child molester is ridiculous, *but* (all due respect to that one random article you posted) writing off a 13 year old seeking sexual gratification from a 7 year old as normal or healthy is utterly fucked. And dangerous. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 That was one incident. The other incidents occurred when she was 13 and her sister was 7. There was definitely sexually motivated grooming of her sister going on. That's an offence. Makes me wonder what else was going on in that household, given that most children learn this behaviour from adults, usually as a result of having been victims of abuse themselves.Finger your 7 year old sister and it's "just one of those things" if you're female but attempt to strike up a conversation with a random woman in the street if you're a bloke and you're a sexual predator who must be destroyed! According to Soulmonster it is perfectly "normal" for an older sister to do this to her much younger sister, and specifically in this case, it's all good because the CHILD "mostly" gave her consent.It is within the range of sexual behaviours that is considered normative for kids at certain ages, yes. But don't take my word for it, take the child psychologists' (I have quoted one earlier in this thread). And consent is incredibly important to separate abuse from non-abuse. Within the limits of sexual behaviour among kids, one specific act could be considered abuse if it was non-consentual but normal if it wasn't. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone, it goes for adult sexual behaviour, too.Calling a child a child molester is ridiculous, *but* (all due respect to that one random article you posted) writing off a 13 year old seeking sexual gratification from a 7 year old as normal or healthy is utterly fucked. And dangerous. I was going to post (pretty much) the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 That was one incident. The other incidents occurred when she was 13 and her sister was 7. There was definitely sexually motivated grooming of her sister going on. That's an offence. Makes me wonder what else was going on in that household, given that most children learn this behaviour from adults, usually as a result of having been victims of abuse themselves.Finger your 7 year old sister and it's "just one of those things" if you're female but attempt to strike up a conversation with a random woman in the street if you're a bloke and you're a sexual predator who must be destroyed! According to Soulmonster it is perfectly "normal" for an older sister to do this to her much younger sister, and specifically in this case, it's all good because the CHILD "mostly" gave her consent.It is within the range of sexual behaviours that is considered normative for kids at certain ages, yes. But don't take my word for it, take the child psychologists' (I have quoted one earlier in this thread). And consent is incredibly important to separate abuse from non-abuse. Within the limits of sexual behaviour among kids, one specific act could be considered abuse if it was non-consentual but normal if it wasn't. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone, it goes for adult sexual behaviour, too.Calling a child a child molester is ridiculous, *but* (all due respect to that one random article you posted) writing off a 13 year old seeking sexual gratification from a 7 year old as normal or healthy is utterly fucked. And dangerous. I trust he child psychologists who describe such sexual curiosity as within the range of normal behaviour. I have quoted on child psychologists' comments oj this earlier in the thread. Unless of course you are actually an expert on the issue and could point to cases where this behaviour has resulted in deviating adult sexuality or other problems, especially for the younger sister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris1989 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I have no idea who this person is, so my only knowledge to judge them is the content of this thread.Safe to say, it's not a good first impression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.