Reading the story, the “gangbang” part wasn’t like a huge orchestrated planned event. The kids were lost in the dark, loosing hope, and knew that IT wanted them to feel down and weak as alone they could be defeated by IT.
In an effort to make them feel close, Beverly took it up her self to make them all Eskimo Brothers. This brought the Losers Club back into solidarity.
I’m a big fan of Stephen Kings work. He’s deserving of respect as a writer and story teller. Your explanation is reasonable and true in the context of the story.
There is just no way to talk about, write about, discuss, etc, stuff like that, without the air in the room not going still as fuck. All of what you say is true, it’s still… off.
And that book was just a bit too long, but again, great book, great writer, questionable AS FUCK portion.
There is just no way to talk about, write about, discuss, etc, stuff like that, without the air in the room not going still as fuck.
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think there are a lot of people out there who could discuss it, but that requires a significant degree of emotional maturity and there are too many people who can’t step back and be open to discussing topics which make them uncomfortable.
Mate, where are you going with this? Aldous Huxely erotic play for children? I think you’re missing the point. It’s not a discussion because the fallacy purported by the writer was to give 12 year olds emotions, desires, and mental processes that they simply have not yet developed. Beverly, the twelve year old girl, wouldn’t think to have sex with her friends to comfort them. Full stop. That’s the writer putting these emotions where they simply wouldn’t exist.
And.
Creepy.
It’s not maturity. Maturity is knowing that twelve year olds don’t reason that way.
Well, she would, because she’s a child sexual abuse survivor and it’s a hypersexualization thing and a result of how she’s been told things work by the adults taking advantage of her.
Still fucked up to type that out and not have some editor say “Are you doing okay, Stevie?”
And don’t pretend this is only fucked up sexual thing he’s written about children.
There are plenty of people who are abused at a young age that come to associate sex with giving comfort or thinking its the only way they can help others.
No, King does not agree with Trump not releasing the Epstein files.
King doesn’t believe there is a document that clearly lists who is guilty of being a pedophile because that isn’t how long running and successful criminal activity works. They have lists of contacts and hints, which have already been released, but not something so cut and dry as a client list.
but not something so cut and dry as a client list.
Right. I know that. I assumed the ‘list’ people were talking about was able to be made with the actual information. Especially with the financial information on where the money was flowing.
The idea that there was 1 specific list that was found isn’t the idea being pushed when people say ‘Release the Epstein file.’ King said he doesn’t think a definitive list is real, but we sure do have a lot of information that can be used to create a list. That list can lead to questions that might have valid answers. It will also lead to a lot of pedos…so I’m assuming protecting them is the point of Trump’s delay.
King might have his own reason for not wanting a list of people not having to explain their connections with Epstein in the past, but I don’t care. Explain it and then move on, if you are innocent. It just feels King is arguing a red herring (about an actual list) instead of the meat and potatoes of going after pedos. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Reading the story, the “gangbang” part wasn’t like a huge orchestrated planned event. The kids were lost in the dark, loosing hope, and knew that IT wanted them to feel down and weak as alone they could be defeated by IT.
In an effort to make them feel close, Beverly took it up her self to make them all Eskimo Brothers. This brought the Losers Club back into solidarity.
I’m a big fan of Stephen Kings work. He’s deserving of respect as a writer and story teller. Your explanation is reasonable and true in the context of the story.
There is just no way to talk about, write about, discuss, etc, stuff like that, without the air in the room not going still as fuck. All of what you say is true, it’s still… off.
And that book was just a bit too long, but again, great book, great writer, questionable AS FUCK portion.
I don’t think that’s true at all. I think there are a lot of people out there who could discuss it, but that requires a significant degree of emotional maturity and there are too many people who can’t step back and be open to discussing topics which make them uncomfortable.
Mate, where are you going with this? Aldous Huxely erotic play for children? I think you’re missing the point. It’s not a discussion because the fallacy purported by the writer was to give 12 year olds emotions, desires, and mental processes that they simply have not yet developed. Beverly, the twelve year old girl, wouldn’t think to have sex with her friends to comfort them. Full stop. That’s the writer putting these emotions where they simply wouldn’t exist. And. Creepy.
It’s not maturity. Maturity is knowing that twelve year olds don’t reason that way.
Well, she would, because she’s a child sexual abuse survivor and it’s a hypersexualization thing and a result of how she’s been told things work by the adults taking advantage of her.
Still fucked up to type that out and not have some editor say “Are you doing okay, Stevie?”
And don’t pretend this is only fucked up sexual thing he’s written about children.
There are plenty of people who are abused at a young age that come to associate sex with giving comfort or thinking its the only way they can help others.
cocaine
That sounds very much like a pedophile fantasy.
That’s like saying that a lot of people get murdered in Stephen King’s stories, so he must have homicidal fantasies.
Horror writers look for ways to shock and shake up their readers, and judging from the comments here, he succeeded.
Yep when your job is to shock, gross out and give people very specifically a moral and ethical panic attack
You tend to do some fucked up stuff.
Jonathan Swift must have really wanted to cannibalize poor children!
I’ll never forget bringing that up in a classroom and realizing adults had no idea it was satire.
… This isn’t satire and King is in the Epstein files.
This isn’t the only pedophile adjacent thing he’s written by the way, not even close.
I assumed that there was a reason that he agrees with trump on not releasing the Epstein files.
No, King does not agree with Trump not releasing the Epstein files.
King doesn’t believe there is a document that clearly lists who is guilty of being a pedophile because that isn’t how long running and successful criminal activity works. They have lists of contacts and hints, which have already been released, but not something so cut and dry as a client list.
Even if there is an explicated log book. It’s likely filled with worthless pseudonyms, chicken scrawl or some other worthless data.
Making it worthless and basically what we already got
Right. I know that. I assumed the ‘list’ people were talking about was able to be made with the actual information. Especially with the financial information on where the money was flowing.
The idea that there was 1 specific list that was found isn’t the idea being pushed when people say ‘Release the Epstein file.’ King said he doesn’t think a definitive list is real, but we sure do have a lot of information that can be used to create a list. That list can lead to questions that might have valid answers. It will also lead to a lot of pedos…so I’m assuming protecting them is the point of Trump’s delay.
King might have his own reason for not wanting a list of people not having to explain their connections with Epstein in the past, but I don’t care. Explain it and then move on, if you are innocent. It just feels King is arguing a red herring (about an actual list) instead of the meat and potatoes of going after pedos. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯