Is there a double standard for Josh Duggar and Lena Dunham?

I hear a dog whistle!

Anyway, as sexual assault was defined then probably not, as it is defined now, yes.

Of course, by the current standard I am both a rapist and a rape victim.

I'll be protesting myself with cake later.

 

Carry this around on your back. You'll fit right in.

 

That looks like a good place to march around in protest, then sit on as I enjoy my cake.

 

In a way, though, this is a nice compliment to the thread about the Northwestern professor who had a Title 9 complaint filed against her for her essay saying that it's hard to call yourself a feminist and also claim you bear little to no responsibility for your own role in a consensual relationship with a powerful person. Bill Clinton is kind of a creep, no doubt. I also doubt he ever fools around with Monica if she doesn't purposefully go give him pizza and bend over and show off her thong. (Granted he probably still fools around with Elizabeth Hurley.) Monica was very much the catalyst of that mess, though he certainly was awful as he tried to save himself in the aftermath.

I'm the father of two girls. (They're young, but won't always be.) If one of them worked as an intern in Washington and threw themselves at a married, elected official, I'd be pissed at the elected official, sure. But I also wouldn't pretend like they were powerless actors in the mess.

Sigh. YF has won another stupid thread by turning it into a Clinton/BJ hamster wheel.

 

I'd love to hear Bill Clinton on these matters. He'd nuance, hypothetical and weave nonsense to such a degree that we'd swear off talking about his escapades ever, ever, ever again.

 

That's bullshit. He's the boss. Hell, he's the leader of the free world. She's an intern working for him. I don't care if he's married or not. There is a clear line there. Hands off (and other parts, too).

Especially at work. I mean, they did it in the Oval Office. If that isn't an abuse of power I don't know what is.

 

It's seems redundant to explain this on a journalism board, but...

The same reason why Duggar and Dunham do not get the same push or play or coverage from the media is the same reason why OJ Simpson and Rae Carruth did not get the same coverage from the media: one is a lot more popular than the other. All four are fucked up people.

 

Of course it's an abuse of power. Don't throw a tantrum here and act like an angry dad. We're not in full disagreement. It's possible to discuss things with nuance, right?

I'm just trying to acknowledge that, in a consensual relationship, there are two parties involved. You can't throw yourself at someone, then be like "Whoa! Abuse of power! He should have known better! As a young female, I need the better judgment of others to protect me from my own decisions."

It's an entirely different thing if the powerful person is the one who purses or pressures the subordinate.

 

Bill Clinton. you know you want it, bitch

 

Dunham is a lot more popular than Duggar among the people who do write about this stuff, I bet.

 

I thought the media produced material for those who would read it.

I don't remember too many page one stories about newspaper layoffs in Tampa on the front of the New York Times or the New York Post.