Talk:Lena Dunham/Archives/2016/April

Not That Kind of Girl Controversy
The article text mentioned a single passage of an incident at age seven. The sources mention a total of 3 instances from age 7 to 17. I have updated the text to better reflect the sources. EmonyRanger (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, but please be more cautious of WP:EDITORIALIZING language. Characterizing the behavior of young children who examine each other's bodies as sexual is contentious, and carries WP:BLP connotations. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sexual in that context refers to child sexuality. I initially qualified it with "what some would characterize", to favor the subject, and you reverted per WP:WEASEL. What word would you prefer? Either way, citing only the single incident unacceptably mischaracterizes multiple reliable sources. EmonyRanger (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The material was WP:UNDUE and not compliant with WP:SUMMARY. I have reverted to the previous consensus version. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If you'd prefer to summarize several instances with one phrase, e.g. sexual abuse, I wouldn't object. But characterizing multiple instances as a single incident is improper. EmonyRanger (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not that. The text is an faulty editorializing of the source. I have reverted per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Note that this article is under Discretionary sanctions per WP:NEWBLPBAN.

This is what the source says:

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The quote outlines 3 instances: candy for kisses, touching her genitals when she was a toddler and masturbating while in bed next to her. According to primary and secondary sources the first incident occurred at age 7 and the last at age 17. "Exploring her young sister's body during their childhood" summarizes only one, at age 7. What text summarizing the multiple instances in your quote would you suggest? EmonyRanger (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the current text:

My objection is that this excludes 2 of the 3 "sexual" incidents which attracted controversy.

Here is what I propose:

It summarizes all 3 controversial "sexual" incidents reported in RS without characterizing them as "sexual" (even though that term is technically correct in this context) or going into unnecessary detail, and accurately reflects the claims of the overwhelming majority of experts: that the incidents are either not sexual abuse or not necessarily sexual abuse. I tried to make it as succinct as possible while maintaining accuracy. Thoughts? Objections? EmonyRanger (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. This is a summary of the main article, and to include a singular instance of a source describing "sexual abuse" is WP:UNDUE. That applies also to the main article, which I will discuss in that article's page. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

A good summary would be:

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, fair and accurate summary. The wording "of a sexual nature" is an improvement over my initial wording "what some characterized as sexual behavior." Thanks. EmonyRanger (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still concerned about the word "sexual" here, but I'm not really sure what a good alternative would be. Playing doctor and genital play are not unambiguously sexual (and masturbation in proximity to another person is not unambiguously an interaction). In some context sexual would be an appropriate term, but this single line of a biography isn't the place to teach a developmental psych class, and using that word is assigning a sexual motivation. Simply saying "interactions of a sexual nature" without any further context is far too easy to misinterpret. We have specific expert opinions that describe it as being non-sexual.


 * I've adjusted the wording, because it's not accurate to say the opinions of experts is that the behavior is either ambiguous or normal. Sources don't say that the behavior is ambiguous, they say there isn't enough information to make a judgement. That's actually very different, and is basically another way of saying "I don't know". It's not that the behavior has been judged borderline, it's that information is lacking, and no reputable professional would make a judgement like that based on such flimsy evidence. It's also worth clarifying that the only account of these interactions is Dunham's own writing. Nobody is assessing the interactions, they are assessing the passages. As it stands, it's a bit bloated, though, but better safe than sorry. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

———

The "experts" quoted are some articles from the Washington Post and Salon, not accredited nor peer reviewed psychiatrists. While they did interview some people, those people (and the articles) were specifically talking about the age 7 incident. Not the long-standing sexual conduct afterwards (the next 10 years).

Not only that, but while sexual development of children is documented and we can argue her playing with Grace (age 1) at age 7 is such development, her at age 17 masturbating next to an 11 year old is without a doubt sexual in nature. She is no longer sexually developing. She is now an adult in most states and can have sexual intercourse. There is also this passage:

"that she was helpless without her big sister leading her through the world. I took a perverse pleasure in delivering bad news to her"

This did not occur when she was 7, but occurred later in her life (when, again, she was already sexually developed). She was acting like someone who is engaging in child grooming. It is worth noting that Grace Dunham is gay. If this is a result of her constantly being engaged in sexual situations by her sister, that is obviously unknown, but the 10 years of claimed sexual conduct by Lena Dunham to Grace Dunham is telling of someone who, after reaching sexual maturity, continued to groom a child to be her sexual partner.

I think the constant tip-toeing around the issue is not giving merit to actual victims of sexual abuse as children. Because if you are sexually abused by anyone who is somewhat famous, they will not be held accountable for their actions because they were "sexually developing" at age 17 apparently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodhi (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 April 2016‎


 * Still at this, huh? Okay. "10 years of claimed sexual conduct..."? How do you sexually conduct to someone? Neither of the Dunhams, nor any actual experts (as quoted by news sources such as Salon and the Washington Post, which is how this works) have described anything in the book as sexual abuse.
 * Why on Earth is it worth noting anything about Grace Dunham's sexuality? That has nothing to do with this past "abuse", which is a WP:FRINGE perspective, to say the least. This isn't the forum to speculate, and the use of loaded words like "groom" demonstrate a lack of neutrality and knowledge about the subject.
 * As for the quote, have you never been around siblings? Using that to support this perspective is cherry picking. Is every examples of someone acknowledging that they picked on their younger sibling now a cause for constant condemnation? How is this different from sibling rivalry? Based on sources available, it is not.
 * The idea of separate beds for all family members, much less separate rooms, is a very recent and very modern concept. Teenagers masturbate. Is that really a controversy? No. Unless reliable sources having anything new to add, this is a settled issue. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Literally nothing about anything you said relates to any thing I postulated. That's somewhat silly. I'll go by it 1-by-1:

"have described anything in the book as sexual abuse."

As I stated, all the sources are EXPLICITLY talking about the incident at age 7. They, in no way, talk about the other 9 years of sexualized conduct that Lena Dunham exposed Grace Dunham too. As such, it is fair to state that once Lena had sexually matured she has gone from being "sexually experimental" (which is a valid argument for a 7 year old) to being a sexual predator.

"Why on Earth is it worth noting anything about Grace Dunham's sexuality?"

On the Wiki itself? It isn't. But it is worth saying that it is fair to criticize Lena's sexual conduct with her sister as a contributing factor to her sexuality and proof of some sort of sexual misconduct on Lena's side.

"and the use of loaded words like "groom" demonstrate a lack of neutrality and knowledge about the subject."

Child grooming is the LONG STANDING and CORRECT use of the actions of a sexually matured person to try and "groom" a child to be their sexual partner, usually by introducing sexually-linked things (such as pornography, mutual or solo masturbation, etc.) into their relationship. http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/07/first-grooming-child-porn-sentence-40-years.html

The fact you think child grooming is a "loaded word" just means you in fact are not neutral or even close to knowledgeable on the subject.

"Is every examples of someone acknowledging that they picked on their younger sibling now a cause for constant condemnation?"

Nice strawman. Really makes me think you know anything about the issue at hand. It is fine for a 9 year old to pick on a 4 year old. It is not fine for a 15, 16, or 17 year old to constantly attempt to cause their younger sibling to feel so low and depressed they run to them for help and comfort, to feel they cannot live (in Lena's words) without the older sibling. In what world do you live where that is appropriate? If it was Grace's Dad that did this instead, would you consider that "family love"? Or would it be a father trying to manipulate his daughter?

Can I link you reliable sources of people saying 17 year olds masturbating next to an 11 year old is sexual abuse? Can I link all the court cases of underaged kids going to jail for sending dick pics? Is that reliable sources to show that she was sexually abusing her sister Grace and not undergoing "sexual development" at age 17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodhi (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Some of your comments are a violation of WP:BLP. Again, no experts have described anything in the book as sexual abuse. If the experts chose not to comment on the later incidents, that's not Wikipedia's problem.
 * If it's not worth mentioning in the Wiki, and it's a flagrantly WP:FRINGE argument, then it's not worth talking about here, since this isn't a forum for discussion. It's absolutely not fair to link her adult sexuality with these childhood events without a reliable source saying exactly that, and your attempts to justify this speculation and circular reasoning have no place here.
 * You appear to be seriously confused about how Wikipedia works. You need to find reliable sources about this incident, not personal opinions, not random law blogs, and not original research. Every source used for this supposed controversy must directly mention this controversy. Your claim that this is connected to grooming needs reliable sources, and using that term without such sources is obviously non-neutral and inflammatory. And yes, I maintain that it demonstrates a lack of understanding of what child grooming means, legally or otherwise. Is Dunham saying that her relationship with her sibling was complicated and sometimes unhealthy? Sure, but that's common enough among siblings that it's not particularly notable by itself. Selectively highlighting quotes from her own book to present her as a monster is not going to work. So far, the only usable sources all imply that this is a manufactured controversy. If you don't agree, find new sources.
 * What does her father have to do with anything? You accuse me of using a strawman while dropping that gem? That's actually kinda funny. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)