Not That Kind of Girl: A Young Woman Tells You What She's "Learned" Not That Kind of Girl question

So the event with her sister...

I didn't think it was abusive at all when I read it. Young kids are curious about the human body.

Let me give you a link about the guy who started this whole "story" - Kevin Williamson. He seems like a real turd, quite frankly.

Honestly people just like to overreact.

they were both young when it happened...when I read the book...I didn't interpret the event as child sexual abuse at all...just happenstance and an childhood innocence of both children...I was surprised when I heard the controversy

Kelly (last edited Dec 11, 2014 09:58AM ) Dec 11, 2014 09:57AM   1 vote
I read the book before hearing about the criticisms. In reading that passage I did not, at all, think her actions were sexual in nature. I find it disturbing that some people want to sexualize a mere case of childhood curiosity. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of development psychology would know that such explorations are completely normal. I have a sister of a comparable age. She is very curious about sexual anatomy differences at this age. If she were to ever touch as part of her curiosity it would be absolutely not sexual in nature - to her it would be just like touching someone's hair. Obviously situations like this passage showcase a prime opportunity for having the "good touch, bad touch" talk, but that's another issue.

I said as much on twitter and was hit with a barrage of angry tweets. I was told: "Of course you would stick up for the rapist. And of course, you would be fat." Also, "What some people (especially feminists) need to be told is to sit down and shut the f**k up." There is so much visceral hatred towards Lena and towards women in general. It's disturbing.

I agree, completely. Her intent was not sexual in any way. She was just curious about the human body.

She was just a kid when she did that to her sister. I am not saying what she had done is something so normal and eveyone did their sisters/brothers but I think she was just curious.
Also writing this shows us that this is a childhood memory of her so no such a big deal.

I'm with all of you on the event. I was oldest child (girl) in a family of 6 kids, 2 of which were boys. We were nudists in our house, kids were always running half or full naked. Two of my younger siblings were always putting weird things, "things that could fit" into body cavities. My sister had to have a red crayon removed from her ear at age 3 ( we had no idea it was in there), and a brother had a bean removed from HIS ear. We figured that out when it GREW.

One incident from our childhood: everyone was poor, and we lived in a (very clean) project of row houses, the kind built for returning WW II servicemen. We had a spray pool, and no money for "bathing suits", so we went to the public pool in underpants. Some of the parents complained over the girls' nipples showing. These girls were 18 months to 6 yrs old! My mother was very quick to point out that anyone who "had a problem with baby nipples were themselves suspect of being child molesters". That shut them up, and made ME think about public (and private) attitudes of sexuality about young children. (I was 6.)

Those who complain of Lena's curiosity should themselves be turned and looked at in the same manner.

About GIRLS. I have watched every bit, and for different reasons. On the one hand I see it as a bunch of crazy privileged white girls living wrongly... (I'm white, but I grew up poor, as I said up there ^

Adrianna (last edited Nov 28, 2014 11:21AM ) Nov 28, 2014 11:19AM   0 votes
Those headlines came out after I read the book and I honestly had no clue what they were referring to until I read the articles. I'm generally critical of Lena Dunham's work. I watched 2 seasons of Girls in order to have an informed opinion, but I just couldn't continue after a couple of episodes of season 3.

I thought it was disturbing that people were sexualizing a 7-year-old. It's extreme to label her a sexual predator when she was motivated by curiosity, not sexual gratification.

One of the great things about Lena's writing is the way she remembers and recaptures small seemingly insignificant episodes of her life that all together makes her who she is. Normal things. Like a kid being curious towards a siblings body in an absolutely nonsexual way. This is like that. Reading abuse into this is a severe overinterpretation.

It was so blown up by the press. After I read the passage in the book, I couldn't believe people were referring to this as "sexual abuse." It's ridiculous.

The abusive part of it is the bribery element

back to top