Posted on 11/03/2014 10:16:25 AM PST by grundle
When I was in college women of a certain sort would boast to their friends at Saturday or Sunday breakfast of encounters of the sort Dunham describes (and which lots of feminists now call "rape" even when it fails to meet the standards of the criminal law's definition). They seemed quite please with the results of their willfully lowered inhibitions, and would also have laughed at anyone telling them they had been raped, as Ms. Dunham reports she did when her roommate interpreted her narrative as a description of a rape.
I haven’t read the book, but the way that you describe the article that you read is an accurate description of how she wrote it. For all practical purposes, she accused the person of rape.
It's common to change names in memoirs for legal reasons. I suspect that Lena changed a lot more than that, though. Every detail makes the story a less believable.
My sense is that the story is a "composite" of details -- some things that happened to her at that time, some things from other experiences, some things she heard about that happened to other people, some things she just made up.
Here's a blog arguing that there's no legal case for rape in this incident. But I suspect that taking her story seriously as a factual account of something that actually happened is a mistake, but it's not hard to understand why the media take it at face value and aren't going to try to discredit her -- too much trouble, too hard to prove, too much potential blowback.
She does drop some details about him ...
It turns out there was a Barry who was president of the Oberlin College Republicans.
Yes and no. She plainly accused him of what feminists now call "rape" to create arguably specious stories about the "epidemic" of "rape" on college campuses.
It is not so clear that she accused him of violating Ohio's rape statutes, since we have only Dunham's report of her own intoxication, and no way of gauging whether "Barry" knew or had reasonable cause to believe her "ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition." For all we know, "Barry" might have also had his ability to resist or consent substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition, and (if they both knew or had reasonable cause to believe this about each other) they are both guilty of rape under Ohio law.
...There are not a great many Republicans at Oberlin, and there was a College Republicans president named Barry whose time at the school coincided with Dunhams. I had a very brief conversation with him in which he declined to talk about the matter. He has since been in contact with me to say that he has never met Dunham and had no relationship with her. ...
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.