what was bro even thinking lmao
what was bro even thinking lmao
You're viewing a single thread.
240 comments
-
Man, who would've thought that the guy who wrote a child orgy scene would turn out to be a pedophile? Edit: Didn't expect this to blow up and result in multiple bans... whoops.
-
I've never read It or cared. I can't see the removed comments.
However, are we really banning people for defending artistic license to write about obscene shit in a horror story? Are pearl clutchers claiming that shit needs justification? That's who we are? Awesome.
-
No. Jesus.
-
The thing is, from what I can see the comments that Weren't removed are mostly what you are saying, defending artistic license. The stuff that Was removed is a bit more... graphic. I didn't get to see All of them, so I can't say for sure, but some of the ones I read were a bit much. Again, most of the people who defended this book and the contents within weren't banned or had their comments removed, just downvoted.
-
"I have no vested interest in this conversation... i don't know any of the context... but are we really doing this thing that nobody is doing?"
Also, yeah dude, you should be able to justify every single action you take ever. If you take an action and can't justify why you did it, then why did you do it? No, seriously. Why did you do it, then? No, you can't explain. That's what justification is. Go ahead. Why did you do it? Oh- no, you can't explain. That's justifying.
Jesus.
-
Also, yeah dude, you should be able to justify every single action you take ever.
Words & expressions of fiction don't need justification: if you dislike them, then don't read them. Easy. Alternatively, start a committee of people who give a shit & get off mutually gratifying each other, I guess.
All of this is fine until we start banning people over disagreeing with opinions hostile to liberal expression. If you don't understand why someone would object to violating the norms of open discourse, then I don't know what to tell you, but I'm going to judge the hell out of you.
-
Okay bud.
-
-
-
-
-
How does any of that in any way justify him writing a scene where a group of 11-12 year olds have a sex orgy?
-
Why does he have to justify his story to you? It's fiction, as in not real. No one asked you if it was okay, but thanks for letting us know you don't think it is. Millions upon millions of readers don't agree with you.
-
No one asked you to reply to the op, either, yet you did. Why is it okay for you to say your take, but not for me to?
-
Because it's a public forum built for discussion? Unlike a fictional novel. Next!
-
We can't voice our opinions on a novel?
-
...a novel which is being discussed in a public forum, yes. I do appreciate when people end their posts with "Next!" because nobody who's worth conversing with would ever do that. Lets me know who not to continue wasting my time with.
-
Bingo! (:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Look, I don't know why you feel the need to defend a part of a book that is, as you just said, a Child Orgy, but you do you, and maybe you should talk to a therapist.
All I can say is; when I write about children, or think about children in any way, I don't ever think about them having sex, whether that be with adults or other children.
-
-
Pedophile.
-
I came too late to see what the guy said, almost makes me want to know, but I think it's better that I don't.
-
-
-
-
What?
-
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.
-
He must've gotten his inspiration out in the tropics 🏝️
-
"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
-
-
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.
-
-
-
Are you saying it's puritanical to be anti-child orgy? You're a pedophile.
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
-
You realize he wrote the book right? Like he had literary control over it, he could have just as easily not put in a child orgy
-
OMG?! Did he?! And someone published it after having read it. And people bought it and didn't burn him at the stake for it.
-
Kay? And? Child based orgies are a gross thing to include in a book
-
Understood. You are free to not read it.
-
No shit Sherlock, but writing about children having orgies is fucked up
-
And people are free to call out how creepy it is, as well as the people defending a child orgy scene.
And that's just one instance of kid sex in King's books.... You gonna defend the scene from The Library Policeman where King describes a young boy being raped in graphic detail too?
-
This thread is giving serious “depicting something in fiction is the same as promoting it” conservative book-banning vibes.
-
Point to a single person calling for a book ban. Go on.
We have all known that the book contains this scene for years. And yet, none of us are calling for bans. One person made a tongue in cheek rhetorical question as a joke, and then a bunch of people came in to defend their beloved child orgy scene. We're just calling you freaks out for defending your beloved child orgy scene so adamantly, because you love child orgies. It's weird.
-
Can’t help you there, haven’t read it.
And nobody said anyone’s calling for bans- I’m saying I’m seeing people make the same arguments made by reactionaries to justify bans.
-
-
I disagree, this is more of a "Hey, why the hell is this in here when it has nothing to do with the story and does nothing for the plot? What does this say about the author?" kind of discussion. It's like when people call out the fact that the goblin dudes in Harry Potter are clearly racist depictions of Jewish people, it's weird and says a lot about the author. Are we saying to ban Harry Potter? No, read it if you want to (just don't pay for it) but keep in mind that the author is a terrible person.
-
If it was one or two instances, maybe. But there are a bunch of these scenes, to the point it feels like a pattern.
I've read King's books all my life so don't take this as an axe to grind. But you can't deny that there are a lot of these scenes, and I'd argue it's still really fucking creepy on its own.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
240 comments