Right? They could have just cut their hands and smushed the blood together to nail the “we have an unbreakable bond” vibe. The sex thing, especially when it’s like 7 boys fucking one girl, is just bad.
“Get a grip!” screams the guy who up and down the thread is wailing about his favorite child sex scene. Jeez, man, you think maybe you need a little less internet and possibly someone to talk to?
Yeah, I like the book. It has nothing to do with the sex scene. You can’t seem to take the work as a whole and only focus on a single part. There’s lots of weird shit out there, no sweat off my back. I just think it’s weird everyone’s jumping on him for old news that isn’t related. I think it’s weird King is defending this administration in any way, but this isn’t the angle of attack I’m willing to accept.
Lol I like the book, too. But I’m not out here dying on the hill of an 11-year-old sex train and honestly, it’s a very obvious thing to point to and say, “Oh, yep, shoulda known.” Because I read It as a child too and I wasn’t too bothered by that scene when I was 10, but I have no interest in revisiting that scene as an adult. Not my thing.
I frankly wonder why a grown man put so much detail into writing about several adolescent penises and how each felt to a little girl. Yes, there was symbolism, but it A) probably could have been symbolized through a different act and B) didn’t require the amount of time, pages, and description the grown man writing it gave it. This is a crazy, batshit hill to die on.
Just few decades before the book was written people were marrying girls of 12-15 years old. Perhaps society can allow themselves to judge from an anachronical standpoint and just be done with it. We still have a lot to improve, and the road is full of … well, people like yourself. Defending what they believe is correct while ignoring other facts…
I’m pretty sure the book doesn’t say the boys fucked each other explicitly, nor is it in the subtext. It is very detailed about them fucking the girl. (From what I remember. it’s been a while)
It is multiple paragraphs, essentially a page or two, of explicit detail, split into 2 parts (Chapter 22, Section 7 for a few paragraphs at the end before a time skip and then continues in Section 12 for a few more paragraphs. The book likes to time skip A LOT)
Absolutely none of it implies the boys engaged in any form of homosexual intercourse. The book explicitly states that their “plan” is to all take turns on Bev.
The novel, It, by Stephen King has a scene as described. That book took a hard, weird turn. The whole scene wasn’t needed for the story.
Right? They could have just cut their hands and smushed the blood together to nail the “we have an unbreakable bond” vibe. The sex thing, especially when it’s like 7 boys fucking one girl, is just bad.
“The sex thing, especially when it’s like 7 boys fucking one girl, is just bad.”
Hot take: I feel a child orgy scene is so bad the specifics aren’t significant
He must’ve gotten his inspiration out in the tropics 🏝️
Removed by mod
just so you know, you’re being really weird about this
Cool
“Get a grip!” screams the guy who up and down the thread is wailing about his favorite child sex scene. Jeez, man, you think maybe you need a little less internet and possibly someone to talk to?
Yeah, I like the book. It has nothing to do with the sex scene. You can’t seem to take the work as a whole and only focus on a single part. There’s lots of weird shit out there, no sweat off my back. I just think it’s weird everyone’s jumping on him for old news that isn’t related. I think it’s weird King is defending this administration in any way, but this isn’t the angle of attack I’m willing to accept.
Lol I like the book, too. But I’m not out here dying on the hill of an 11-year-old sex train and honestly, it’s a very obvious thing to point to and say, “Oh, yep, shoulda known.” Because I read It as a child too and I wasn’t too bothered by that scene when I was 10, but I have no interest in revisiting that scene as an adult. Not my thing.
I frankly wonder why a grown man put so much detail into writing about several adolescent penises and how each felt to a little girl. Yes, there was symbolism, but it A) probably could have been symbolized through a different act and B) didn’t require the amount of time, pages, and description the grown man writing it gave it. This is a crazy, batshit hill to die on.
Just few decades before the book was written people were marrying girls of 12-15 years old. Perhaps society can allow themselves to judge from an anachronical standpoint and just be done with it. We still have a lot to improve, and the road is full of … well, people like yourself. Defending what they believe is correct while ignoring other facts…
I’m pretty sure the book doesn’t say the boys fucked each other explicitly, nor is it in the subtext. It is very detailed about them fucking the girl. (From what I remember. it’s been a while)
It is multiple paragraphs, essentially a page or two, of explicit detail, split into 2 parts (Chapter 22, Section 7 for a few paragraphs at the end before a time skip and then continues in Section 12 for a few more paragraphs. The book likes to time skip A LOT)
Absolutely none of it implies the boys engaged in any form of homosexual intercourse. The book explicitly states that their “plan” is to all take turns on Bev.
Are you saying it’s puritanical to be anti-child orgy? You’re a pedophile.
no one mentioned the children fornicating with each other until you did, yea your making it wierder than it is.
No, I understand that much. I’m asking why this weirdo is acting like the premise isn’t weird based on the given context.
They tried to give more? context in defense? of the writing?
Idk they’re being weird I think.