Terrifying Tales Of The Double Standard: Lena Dunham’s Unwanted Kiss

I suggest listening to this as background as you gaze at the picture…

Sexual harassment is unwelcome sexual advances in a workplace setting. Sexual assault is an uninvited or consented to touching of a sexual nature.

Outspoken feminist/writer/actress Lena Dunham decided to spontaneously kiss walk over toher “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” costar Brad Pitt and kiss him, at the Quentin Tarantino film’s London premiere.  I’m enjoying the media accounts—more on this below— that say she “appeared” to kiss him: what else could she be trying to do? Whisper in his mouth? Eat his lips?)

The photographic evidence makes it clear that the advance was unwelcome, indeed evoking  an exchange in “Singing in the Rain”:

Someone should ask Brad whether he’d choose to kiss Dunham over a tarantula. I’m sure he’ll be gallant, but this photo …

…suggests that his honest answer would echo Jack Benny’s famous “I’m thinking! I’m thinking!”

Dunham is not only a leading Hollywood #MeToo feminist, she’s a smug and obnoxious Hollywood #MeToo feminist. On what basis, then, could she think that ambushing Brad Pitt with an attempted open mouth kiss would not signal utter hypocrisy and, one more time, the convenient double standards of an “oppressed” group that believes that they should get passes for the exact same conduct they have fiercely and publicly condemned in others?

Naturally, the “woke” media mostly shrugged off this revealing episode, one of many that suggest that behind much—most?— of the #MeToo movement is the motive of bringing down powerful men. Here’s typical coverage:

“The pictures prompted some backlash on social media, with many saying it represents a double standard when it comes to sexual misconduct. Some argued that Dunham had assaulted Pitt, since it appeared that he wasn’t consenting to her kiss.”

Suggested that it’s a double standard? It is a double standard. If John Lasseter tried the same moves on Dunham, she would hold a press conference demanding justice. Of course, Lasseter, the shamed and dethroned head of Pixar who was a serial hugger—you know, like leading Democratic Presidential contender Joe Biden—isn’t as cute as Brad.

Some argued that Dunham had assaulted Pitt? There’s no argument: if someone kisses someone else without any hint of consent or invitation, that’s both assault and battery. (The assault is creating the fear of imminent touching—Brad’s expression makes THAT inarguable–and the battery is the contact itself, in this case having forced contact with Lena Dunham’s mouth, which might have been God Knows Where.)

So what are the rules that #MeToo is demanding we impose? Men can’t impulsively kiss, hug or otherwise touch in an arguably  sexual way any women, unless the man is the only non-crazy Democratic candidate whom the average American could pick out of line-up? Attractive women are always off limits for trembling, aspiring  male lips, but women can kiss them without opprobrium, especially on stage, or on live TV? This would be the Madonna Exception. Remember the 2003 VMAs? Sure you do…

Homely, desperate, unethical male entertainment industry figures like Harvey Weinstein, Les Moonves and Garrison Keillor are power-abusing monsters if they presume to exploit situations to kiss women in the workplace, but  homely, desperate, unethical female entertainment industry figures can kiss male eye-candy at will—is that the deal? Or does this just apply to Brad Pitt? Or only Dunham? Somebody ask Lena; she’s a #MeToo expert, I hear.

All we are asking for, #MeToo, is clear rules. They don’t have to make sense, because where sex in the workplace is involved, they never can and never will. Let me take that back a bit: one rule makes sense and is quite clear. Don’t engage in sexual touching or other sexual conduct of any kind in the workplace,  unless you’re a sex worker.

11 thoughts on “Terrifying Tales Of The Double Standard: Lena Dunham’s Unwanted Kiss

  1. Uggh. Has she no self-worth that she has to kiss someone in public without his being interested? I didn’t like being told I had to kiss creepy relatives, male or female, and that was decades before. He really didn’t have much choice about making a scene, that would claim victimhood which does no good to his image..

    THIS is me too in a nutshell’s worthlessness. All it is doing is changing the privileged, but it is not just. We need to bring back shaming because this violates her advocacy, and she should apologize to all the men she harangued because she should know better.

  2. #MeToo has always been about one thing — powerful cis-gender white males, and casting a pall on every one they can by casting aspersions of sexual impropriety, deserved or not.

    Feminist women have reached a crisis in their politics. They want equality until men identifying as women start winning their medals. They think their feelz usurp reason, logic and law, and they are finding it difficult to apply that standard unilaterally as more of the ethical bankruptcy of modern feminist victim-culture is exposed.

    Camile Paglia, the quintessential true feminist, said it best recently:

    My philosophy of equity feminism demands removal of all barriers to women’s advancement in the political and professional realms. However, I oppose special protections for women in the workplace. Treating women as more vulnerable, virtuous or credible than men is reactionary, regressive and ultimately counterproductive.

    Complaints to the Human Resources department after the fact are no substitute for women themselves drawing the line against offensive behavior — on the spot and in the moment. Working-class women are often so dependent on their jobs that they cannot fight back, but there is no excuse for well-educated, middle-class women to elevate career advantage or fear of social embarrassment over their own dignity and self-respect as human beings. Speak up now, or shut up later! Modern democracy is predicated on principles of due process and the presumption of innocence.

    Naturally, the “woke” left rejects this as sexist, which tells you just how lost #MeToo has become.

      • If I had unlimited funds (which is what it would take), I’d get Paglia hired as president of my now lousy college to whip the faculty and administration into shape and turn it back into an honest to God liberal arts college worthy of such a sobriquet. I love her ferocity.

        • It’s Lefties like Paglia that give me hope, OB, and why I add the disclaimer (most, not all) to my even-keeled, middlin’, non-partisan, non-judgmental, centrist observations of Lefty INC.

  3. What a goat rodeo.

    Lena Dunham, trust fund baby Manhattanite extraordinaire. Ugh.

    From Frank Zappa: What’s the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, I think it’s your mind, your mind, your mind.

  4. #Metoo has never been about anything other than women becoming dominant. Not just any women either, only feminists need apply. All-feminist women editorial board? No problem. All male editorial board? Big problem. Woman gives male eye candy a big smackeroo? No problem. Man looks a little too long at a woman? Harassment! “Shut up and step up.” “Step away from your power.” “Publish only books by women for a year.” “Take away the franchise from white men for a generation.” If these ideas were directed at anyone other than white men they’d be stopped in a minute, and rightly so. But, no one can be racist against a white, no one can be sexist against a man, and so on. It’s actually getting boring.

  5. In her defense, she was probably overwhelmed with gratitude towards Pitt, Tarantino, and everyone else responsible for this film, for finally allowing her to be associated in some way with something entertaining.

    • She plays the Manson Family mom and has about 5 minutes of screentime. I for one have enjoyed some schadenfreude from her roles recently.

  6. So, I wonder if Google and Social Media are going to bury the El Paso shooter’s manifesto, too. In his manifesto, he claims that he supports the Christchurch, NZ shooter’s manifesto. I you remember that one, the Christchurch shooter essentially declares himself a Communist who is committing the mass shooting to allow the government an excuse to seize all the guns and take more power. In the El Paso case, the shooter declares himself a Communist and says this invasion from the south is insane. I was only able to see the first half-page of the manifesto in a screenshot and have not been able to get the full Manifesto (unlike the Christchurch one). The fact that the press have reported the Christchurch manifesto as being essentially the opposite of what it actually is and the Christchurch shooters motives the opposite of what they were does not give me hope that we will be told the truth about this one, either.

    As for mass shootings, is anyone else astonished that the Las Vegas shooting investigation just disappeared. Last I saw, the authorities couldn’t even establish a timeline of events. The reason Paddock was laundering a million dollars or so each month through Vegas weren’t explained. His mental state and medications were not being investigated. Then, they just closed the investigation. The FBI essentially said ‘Well, we have no idea what happened here, move along, nothing to see here’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.