Posted on 05/30/2015 7:12:11 AM PDT by lifeofgrace
Aesop couldn’t have told this fable better. Three sex scandals, and three different responses. The Left celebrates admitted sexual abuse for their own, ravages those who honestly approach the subject, and withholds judgment for those who cover it up.
The profane, progressive and feminist actress Lena Dunham molested her one-year-old sister when she was seven. Dunham admitted, even praised this act, calling it “sexual exploration.” When they were older, she also paid her sister with candles for “prolonged kisses on the lips” and masturbated in bed next to her when Dunham was 17 and her sister was just 11 years old.
Yet nobody in the media exploded in anger. In fact, USA Today published an apology.
In the world of sexual behavior, experts says it's not unusual.But Dunham was far older than 4 or 5 years of age when she molested her sister, and continued the molestation and “grooming” for a decade."This type of touching and exploration is relatively common," says Debby Hebernick, associate professor in Indiana University's School of Public Health and author of Sex Made Easy. "It's common for young children to explore their own bodies and even those of friends or siblings in this way. That doesn't mean it's OK. And it's just as common for parents, teachers and caregivers to set boundaries and to teach children what's OK and what's not OK."
Hebernick didn't consider Dunham's passages titillating. . "There's not even anything sexual here," she says. "This is touching of the genitals. And the way the vast majority of times that children and adults touch their genitals has nothing to do with sex."
The American Academy of Pediatrics says parents should expect touching to happen. HealthyChildren.org, overseen by the Academy, writes in its Ages and Stages guidelines that at 4 to 5 years of age a child might show an interest in touching "her own genitals and may even show an interest in the genitals of other children."
This is how Dunham turned out in life:
“I stopped wearing the nude patch after the first season of Girls,” Dunham said. “There’s not one guy who works on that show who hasn’t seen the inside of my vagina. This patch – you glue it over your vagina. It gets sweaty and always falls off. My male co-stars, at the end of the day, don’t care.”But they do care about Josh Duggar, who touched his younger sisters’ vaginas and breasts, mostly while they slept, as a 14-year-old. TLC pulled all showings of “19 Kids and Counting” after Duggar admitted that he committed those acts, and that he was investigated by local police in 2006.
Duggar also quit his job as executive director of FRC Action, the political action arm of the Family Research Council.
HBO has not pulled any episodes of “Girls,” the show in which Lena Dunham stars as a narcissistic aspiring New York City writer. Dunham still has her job, and her paycheck.
If the double-standard isn’t clear to you yet, let’s look at a third example.
Dennis Hastert, Republican and former Speaker of the House, second in line for the presidency in Constitutional succession, allegedly paid more than $1 million to a man identified only as “Individual A” to cover up sexual abuse while Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach decades ago.
Hastert’s troubles have only begun, in what’s sure to be a blockbuster scandal—or will it? Hastert has been long retired from politics, and the crime for which he’s indicted is financial in nature: he paid hush money to someone who had beans to spill.
The mainstream media has covered the story (here, here, here, and here), with The Washington Post choosing to headline their coverage “How Dennis Hastert made a fortune in land deals,” almost totally avoiding the central issue of hush money to conceal sexual abuse.
Hastert doesn’t have much to lose. He’s 73 years old, rich, and living well. He could serve prison time for lying to the FBI.
But I don’t see Twitter exploding in rage and indignation at Hastert’s alleged crime, and the massive coverup. In fact, nobody appears to be shocked. They seem to be more worried about his ill-gotten financial gains than the victim (or victims) of his sexual abuse.
Sexual misconduct allegations 'shock' Capitol Hill http://t.co/yWSZ82RCWt Yeah right! #BohemianGrove pic.twitter.com/vMFdg6OAUX — Say No to the TPP (@kencampbell66) May 30, 2015
The real Denny Hastert scandal (but of course not the one he’s in trouble for) http://t.co/c0Yof97T6v— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) May 30, 2015
It’s strange how the Left focuses so intently on Duggar’s victims, who have forgiven him, but not Dunham’s victim, or Hastert’s victim.
Then again, it’s not strange at all. Sexual abuse doesn’t shock liberals. They use victims of sexual abuse the same way they use victims of anything: as the object of fables to support their narrative. Every victim, from Trayvon Martin, to Michael Brown, to Freddy Gray, to the Duggar sisters, must become a Hansel and Gretel, pursued by the evil witch seeking to eat them alive.
The evil, of course, is anything conservative, Christian, or Republican (in a pinch). Dunham isn’t any of those, so she can’t have a victim to protect. Hastert is a Republican but a poor example to use, so his victim is more a leech to expose Hastert’s financial shenanigans.
But Josh Duggar had victims, because he’s a Christian.
The Left and their media lapdogs don’t even hide their agenda. It’s right out in the public square.
Dunham, Duggar and Hastert all had victims. Only one of them actually admitted it.
The Left rewards truthfulness with venom, denial with praise, and bribery with a wink and a nod. Such is their twisted morality.
How about we focus on all of the victims, and acknowledge that all of the predators are scum.
The bent one I’m sure has visited nubile island and played slap and tickle
> Hebernick didn’t consider Dunham’s passages titillating. . “There’s not even anything sexual here,” she says. “This is touching of the genitals. And the way the vast majority of times that children and adults touch their genitals has nothing to do with sex.”
Really? With that logic, like pulling a trigger and aiming a gun at someone’s head has nothing to do with murder. You guys are so blinded by evil wants and desires you will say anything to excuse your behavior. Anything that works. You have no concept of truth anymore. None.
My question is where does Michael Jackson fit into this dialog?
That article is mostly drivel.
Here is the essential point: Josh Duggar is well known and was in the position of professional stone thrower for the FRC. Everything about what he supposedly believes is against molestation just as much as homosexuality, or any sin that is bringing society down. They hypocrisy meter is off the charts and people are commenting.
On DU last week there was a thread screaming about the Duggars running next to one praising Michael Jackson.
I’m in agreement with you. Conservatives could use any other number of hypocritical behaviors by liberals. Standing up for Duggar is a losing stance. Dunham is known for being an amoral filthy whore. (I also don’t believe what she wrote about her sister. She is a pathological lying attention seeker) Hastert is a POS for molesting a boy. All three are losers.
HBO doesn’t have advertisers and “Girls” has low ratings and they’re getting lower.
TLC dropped “19 Kids and Counting” because so many of the advertisers are pulling their commercials.
They’re trying to have a spinoff involving the 2 married Duggar girls Jessa and Jill, we’ll see if they can sell ads for that.
Exactly. Is the aim of this article to point out that Josh is the better of the three perverts? Okay...... And?
It makes no sense at all.
A better show would be about all of the people who escaped from the sick cult religion of the Duggars.
Not at all.
The victims of Hastard haven’t even been named yet. It’s only been 2 days. There’s plenty of hysteria coming down the pike in due time.
The Duggards set themselves up as paragons of virtue, who watched their children like hawks and chaperoned every date. The truth in this case was shocking.
Dunham is a pig who looks like a pig, acts like a pig in real life, and portrays herself as a pig on her show and in print. She’s already been exposed for lying about a rape with a Republican boy who supposedly was her boyfriend yet it turns out he no contact with her in collage. The truth in this case was not shocking
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.