we have been thrilled to see so many women’s voices heard and dark experiences in this industry justified. It’s a hugely important time of change and, like every feminist in Hollywood and beyond, we celebrate

And to CH's point, who celebrates finding out about rapes and sexual assaults?

These people are sick.

I think that was just worded poorly. They meant they are pleased that the light has started to shine on the underworld in Hollywood. The fact that HER friend couldn't possibly be a rapist...because reasons, is the real fuck you to the world.

Unreal.

Rather than taking a critical look at their stupid position that men should be presumed guilty, they just state that their friend is the exception... but no one else's is!

And to CH's point, who celebrates finding out about rapes and sexual assaults?

These people are sick.

Gotta love the "fuck it, let's just say it's 3%" statistic in there.

Gotta love the "fuck it, let's just say it's 3%" statistic in there.

Maybe she's a scientist?

Goddamn dolts.

she's a disgusting human being. and she fingered her little sister when she was 7. fuck this "feminist goddess". i wish more women would tar and feather people like her.

Add this to the list of reasons why Lena Dunham is a turd

she's a disgusting human being. and she fingered her little sister when she was 7. fuck this "feminist goddess". i wish more women would tar and feather people like her.

Still there's the question of language to consider. You could say that Dunham could have used some different words. At one point in this chapter, she describes her unrequited affection for her younger sister as manifesting in actions "a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl." But this figurative language, in poor taste given the context—and unremarkable in the context of the many other tone-deaf moments in the memoir—is not in itself telling, not at all. What's she really talking about here? I offer my friends candy; I invite them into my car. I handle nice takeout sandwiches gently, because I want them to be firm when I shove them in my mouth. Am I predatory? Towards sandwiches, absolutely. Am I using dumb language? Oh, for sure. Hinting at a consent problem? Hell motherfucking no.

People are also getting caught up on the fact that Dunham says that her sister "didn't resist." That is bad wording, but it's also important: her sister, a baby at the time, was not made uncomfortable, was not put in a state of panic or pain. For a seven-year-old touching a sibling whose diaper she has likely assisted in changing, that's a reasonable metric to think that your actions are okay.

Which isn't to say it was actually okay. It wasn't! Get out of there, Lena! But the area between "Well, let's never do that again" and "This is sexual abuse" is significant and real and crucial to delineate if we want to preserve our ability to identify, indict and prosecute the latter. The problem is that no one ever told Dunham her freedom had a limit. The fact that Dunham off-handedly writes that her mother didn't correct her because peering into vaginas was just "within the spectrum of things [she] did" is indicative of something that is at the root of every tiresome Dunham backlash: the fact that, of all the things this young artist has included in the vast multimedia portrayal of her own experience, there are very, very few moments of true consideration for any difficulties contained in experiences that are not her own.

More often, as Carolyn Edgar writes at Slate, Dunham seems "troublingly averse to adult reflection on her life." That's the root of the careless language, the sloppily assembled memory: that's a matter of the upbringing that made her as successfully self-absorbed as she is. And self-absorption, in most cases, has to be trained out of you eventually, in the same way that sexuality eventually gets trained in.

Jezebel e-spilling an e-lot of e-ink to say "look, she's not a sexual predator, she's just a writer who fails to express herself clearly and thoughtfully because she's such a coddled brat!"