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.
This is a very well-made point which does make a very good case for her actions fitting with her backstory.
However, a) it really only works as a post-hoc rationalisation for the scene, rather than an explantation for why the book is better with it, and b) speaking about consistency and foreplanning is somewhat undermined by the climax of the book being “…actually, it’s a…giant alien spider!”
You know the story isn’t real, and any “explanation” that makes it seem logical is purely designed by the author, right? She didn’t survive anything. King made up a story about a sexual assault survivor and wrote this into it. He could have chosen literally anything else.
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.
There’s also choosing to put that into a book. Choosing to put that in a story. Thinking about the psychology of a sexually abused child and thinking “this would go well into my book.”
Ummm was your childhood stunted or something? 12yos absolutely can be capable of complex emotional intelligence and reasoning. Hell, for most of humanity “childhood” wasn’t even a concept and an adult was anyone over 13.
And don’t get me wrong, that we can gift our young the idea of “childhood” is simply one of the greatest achievements of the modern world, so I’m not out here trying to say kids should be considered adults again, but I think you are vastly underestimating the capability of children. Especially children who are trauma survivors and haven’t had the benefit of the slow progress of childhood gifted to them.
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.
This is a very well-made point which does make a very good case for her actions fitting with her backstory.
However, a) it really only works as a post-hoc rationalisation for the scene, rather than an explantation for why the book is better with it, and b) speaking about consistency and foreplanning is somewhat undermined by the climax of the book being “…actually, it’s a…giant alien spider!”
You know the story isn’t real, and any “explanation” that makes it seem logical is purely designed by the author, right? She didn’t survive anything. King made up a story about a sexual assault survivor and wrote this into it. He could have chosen literally anything else.
Sure, he was being a weird freak of an author and not for the last time.
Doesn’t mean it’s not outright silly to complain that a child SA survivor has a broken view of sexual norms and what adulthood is.
That’s not what people are complaining about. They’re complaining about the author wanting to write about that.
It is literally what the comment I responded to was complaining about.
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.
Sure.
There’s also choosing to put that into a book. Choosing to put that in a story. Thinking about the psychology of a sexually abused child and thinking “this would go well into my book.”
Ummm was your childhood stunted or something? 12yos absolutely can be capable of complex emotional intelligence and reasoning. Hell, for most of humanity “childhood” wasn’t even a concept and an adult was anyone over 13.
And don’t get me wrong, that we can gift our young the idea of “childhood” is simply one of the greatest achievements of the modern world, so I’m not out here trying to say kids should be considered adults again, but I think you are vastly underestimating the capability of children. Especially children who are trauma survivors and haven’t had the benefit of the slow progress of childhood gifted to them.
i definitely knew about sex by 12
Same? Like does no one remember being 12, or did they just block it out?