I feel like the headline for this story should have been, "Chicks dumped by dumped chick."

Okay I'll bite.

But in this article you do defend her. You defend a questionable action as innocent and harmless without the subsequent context that would indicate that it very well may not have been innocent. Regardless of how early this behavior started, this was an early indicator and predecessor to actual predatory abuse…

Except that you've preemptively dismissed her critics as 'small fedoras'. What purpose did that serve except to blunt and mute the negative reaction to her?

I really wish we could get another point of view. With so many authors, I don't think we should get just one opinion.

Gonna reply to my own comment here with some of examples of what I mean so that people can see what I'm talking about:

The people who say it's like playing doctor or it was sexual exploration are hopeless.

Holy shit. I thought it was only the pebble story. That is some very bizarre behavior and maybe a developmental psychologist could convince me it still within the range of normal but to not include it in a defense of Dunham is totally irresponsible.

Thank you. If Lena only talked about the child exploration, then this post would make sense. But there's a whole bunch of shit Lena included in her memoir that is fucked up.

Yes. There are 1 year olds who could do that. But if you were to ask me which is the more likely scenario: a 1 year old putting pebbles in her vagina immediately followed by the moment a 7 year old coincidentally decided to look at her sister's vagina OR a 7 year old lying about having put pebbles in her 1 year old…

Fucking exactly. There is so much more to this than simply peering into your sister's vagina at a young age. While I don't think Lena Dunham is necessarily a sexual predator, I do think it's ridiculous how outraged and immediately defensive she became when people started questioning these passages from her book. If…

It's really easy to defend something when you frame it in whatever way you like, and omit the stuff that doesn't fit your angle.

THIS is what the fuck is bothering me. It seems that there is much more to the story but the focus from the white feminist media is "oh, she only looked at her sister's vagina when she was 7." From all accounts, that is NOT the only thing she said she did. WTF!

Yes. Tolentino chose the least troubling of all the incidents Dunham describes and pretends that alone is the issue. A straw man.

I'm not lying. I don't have any experiences like this. I have five sisters, and to my knowledge, none of us ever behaved that way. The pebble story doesn't bother me, it's odd, but they were both very young. But masturbating in bed next to your ten year old sister is predatory.

Uh yeah - someone at Jezebel needs to address this other shit, pronto. I had zero clue about anything other than the stones or whatever in her sister's vagina (which is tame IMO).

They want to defend Lena and the only way to do so is to omit.

A 7 yr old sticking her fingers in the vagina of a baby is not normal. And I call bullshit on the baby sticking pebbles up her vagina in the first place. I have several kids, I used to be a nanny, I have been around babies a lot- babies stick pebbles in their mouths or maybe their noses - not up their genitals. Lena…

THANK YOU. The only answer to this question is that it is on purpose they are leaving out the parts you mentioned because in totality it looks really fucking bad.

ok, you addressed the passage about checking out her younger sister's vagina and I can get with you on your points about children exploring their bodies and whatnot. However, what about the parts about her doing "everything a pedophile would do" to get her sister to make out with her? Or masturbating in bed next to…