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.
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