Steve's Explanation For Loser's Sex Scene

[César Hernández-Meraz]

That said- please don't ever accuse me of condoning the 'rape' of a child. Ever! EVER!

Especially of a child, but I will add "of anyone". Young or old. Female or male (yes, we can be raped, too, and by women, at that).

Two people consenting to sex? Their business. I hope they enjoy it and that their emotions are mature enough to handle it (some of us adults may not have that maturity).

But if someone is led to sex without their consent, that is definitely not good.

 

[Robert Gray]

I feel some of the people on this thread who weren't disturbed by the scene are maybe a little too lax in their views when it comes to children having sex/an 11 year old girl being used by multiple boys.

I had to think about whether or not to respond. All in all, I think almost everything that can be said about this topic has already been covered. Other people have, and rightfully so, commented on how insulting you are being. There isn't much point in my going into that. I really don't like to repeat myself on the same topic, but you kind of entered slightly new territory.

1. This wasn't a a girl used by a bunch of boys. She initiated and controlled the event.
2. Beverly wasn't "whored out" to use your phrase, although your terminology speaks more about you than the character.
3. Stephen King didn't make the character into a sex object.

I hate to break it to you, but men and women on some level are all viewed sexually by other people. For someone to sink to the lowest common denominator and write a character specifically to tap into that kind of thing would require more than a sex scene. It would prevail throughout the book. Beverly would have existed merely for that purpose and it would have been the driving force of every scene she is in. The fact that the scene in question catches people off guard indicates, CLEARLY, that isn't the case. Beverly is a girl. She isn't a sex object.

I'm going to indulge in a brief bit of Deconstruction Theory. Why aren't you saying Stephen King made the little boys into sex objects? Those characters are also minors. They too are largely innocent, and by no means are any of the Losers predatory. Are you saying only girls can be "whored out" in such a scene? Since none of the male Losers initiated the act or preyed upon Beverly, how exactly was she degraded? Most of us are pretty jaded in this internet age and have, unfortunately, seen far more degrading treatment of people than we would like. None of it, however, has ever resembled the interactions between the Losers. Or perhaps you are inferring that you think Stephen King is degrading all women by using a fictional girl in a scene that involves sex? I really think you need to clarify what was degrading and why and who the predators are and why?

 

[muskrat]

Well, you know, after a long day of fighting murderous bullies and an inter-dimensional monster in a nasty sewer, some cats just wanna relax and get they freak on.

Heh heh.

Remember: it's just a book, folks.

 

[chris2-4]

I've heard lots of people say when they read IT as kids, the scene didn't bother them. When they re-read the book as adults with kids, their view of it changed. That's how I feel about it now. It seems stranger now than it did when I first read it.

 

[kingricefan]

I've heard lots of people say when they read IT as kids, the scene didn't bother them. When they re-read the book as adults with kids, their view of it changed. That's how I feel about it now. It seems stranger now than it did when I first read it.

I read It when it was first published in hardback. I was 26 years old. I have to admit that I did squirm in my chair at the time. It didn't bother me when I did a re-read a couple of years ago.

 

[skimom2]

I read It when it was first published in hardback. I was 26 years old. I have to admit that I did squirm in my chair at the time. It didn't bother me when I did a re-read a couple of years ago.

Creepy then, creepy now. The scene felt ill-advised to me--a thought process of an adult not a child, particularly those imaginative, emotionally young kids. Didn't ruin the book for me (it's one of my favorites), but it's a chunk of rubble to stumble upon right at the end of a smooth road.

 

[muskrat]

I was the same age as the young Losers when I first read It. I was shocked, I suppose, but not really offended. I identified with those kids so damn much, and, I must admit, was a little bit in love with Beverly by then, so the scene seemed kinda natural (still, though, all six of them? Ye gods.) Those cats had been through so much, had seen so much horror and death, they weren't children anymore. Their innocence was gone, and how better to illustrate this then with...that scene. (still...all six? Yeesh.)

These days, though, I look at that scene and am amazed it even made the cut. What the hell, Tabby? You asleep at the switch that day? It's rather embarrassing, and more than a little creepy, and a definite indicator that Uncle Stevie was ingesting wayyyy too much cocaine. But what could King do? If The Dark Tower taught us anything, it's that Stephen King really isn't in control of these stories, he's merely the terminal through which they flow. It wasn't a conscious decision on his part, I don't think. That's how the story played-out in his brain, and by God, that's what he put on the paper. To do less would be cheating.

Still, though...all SIX? Yeeeesh...

 

[not_nadine]

I was the same age as the young Losers when I first read It. I was shocked, I suppose, but not really offended. I identified with those kids so damn much, and, I must admit, was a little bit in love with Beverly by then, so the scene seemed kinda natural (still, though, all six of them? Ye gods.) Those cats had been through so much, had seen so much horror and death, they weren't children anymore. Their innocence was gone, and how better to illustrate this then with...that scene. (still...all six? Yeesh.)

These days, though, I look at that scene and am amazed it even made the cut. What the hell, Tabby? You asleep at the switch that day? It's rather embarrassing, and more than a little creepy, and a definite indicator that Uncle Stevie was ingesting wayyyy too much cocaine. But what could King do? If The Dark Tower taught us anything, it's that Stephen King really isn't in control of these stories, he's merely the terminal through which they flow. It wasn't a conscious decision on his part, I don't think. That's how the story played-out in his brain, and by God, that's what he put on the paper. To do less would be cheating.


Still, though...all SIX? Yeeeesh...

Yes to that whole post. Specially this.

Stephen King really isn't in control of these stories, he's merely the terminal through which they flow. It wasn't a conscious decision on his part, I don't think. That's how the story played-out in his brain, and by God, that's what he put on the paper. To do less would be cheating.

And yes, six - yeeesh.

 

[not_nadine]

Yah, where was Tabby!

 

[César Hernández-Meraz]

I've heard lots of people say when they read IT as kids, the scene didn't bother them. When they re-read the book as adults with kids, their view of it changed. That's how I feel about it now. It seems stranger now than it did when I first read it.

What I am going to write is not the same as having sex at 11, but it illustrates the same idea you share here.

When I was in elementary school, my brother was two grades above me. Some days, instead of taking the school bus back home, my brother, a friend of his and I would walk home. It must have been some 3 km. When he graduated, I sometimes walked it alone (I was 9 back then).

Of course, right now, if I had a 9 year old son I would freak out to learn he came walking instead of taking the bus. But then I felt old enough to do it without problems Although there were less crimes against lone walking 9 year old boys back then than there are now I bet other kids of any age see things differently than whoever is older and looks back. A 16 year old will think he is ready for anything life throws his way. As he grows older, he sees his 16yo self as "just a kid". Right now, I can see 21 year old people and see how they are just barely out of being children.

 

[Lee9900]

When I was thirteen all I heard about from other children my age was "you've got to slip her the hot beef or you're a ******, man". That was from both guys AND girls.

And Romeo and Juliet were teenagers.

The adults never got wind of this, or if they did, they never said anything about it.

This was in the early eighties for me.

 

[Waylander]

I admit to feeling uncomfortable when I read this on it's UK publication. I love the book, and I fully understand the reason behind the scene, but now I skim over that part when I have a reread. Afterall, I know what happens and why, so there's no reason for me to put myself through that, it's enough that I still know what happens.

 

[do1you9love?]

I've heard lots of people say when they read IT as kids, the scene didn't bother them. When they re-read the book as adults with kids, their view of it changed. That's how I feel about it now. It seems stranger now than it did when I first read it.

I just finished a re-read of IT and wanted to post my thoughts. I found this and realized it was the best place for me to do so.

I first read the book when I was 12 or 13. I feel that I was too young (not that everyone that age is, just me personally). It must have really struck a nerve, because while I re-read books all the time, I never once wanted to re-read this one. In my head, my reasoning was

Spoiler

IT's a spider? How stupid!

but about 4 years ago, after being on this board for a bit and realizing how many members called this a favorite, I thought it was time for a re-read.

I was SHOCKED when I got to the scene with Bev and the boys. I had completely blocked it out of my mind, literally had no recollection that I had even read it. In retrospect, I think that was what had kept me from enjoying the book as a whole. As an adult, I did appreciate and enjoy the novel more, but this scene really disturbed me.

Fast forward to this week. I had recently acquired a hardcopy of IT. Something made me want to re-read it now. As I mentioned it the "What are you reading?" thread, it just seemed like the right time. I remembered that this scene existed, but not all details leading up to it. I remembered some other aspects of the story but had them somewhat garbled in my mind. I went in with no reservations but to absorb the novel as it was intended.

I finished up the book last night and in this third reading, I took the scene for what I believe Mr. King intended (as referenced in the first post of this thread). It was an act that Bev used to reconnect their bond and bring them home. This time around, I really didn't see it as a sex-scene, but as an act of love and empowerment. Tremendously moving.

I don't wish to start all of the arguments and bashing again, but I needed a place to express my thoughts. Thanks, Tet!

 

[doowopgirl]

I have to agree with you. The first time I read IT I was completely underwhelmed. So I left it for ages. I remember being not pleased with ending myself. Thought it was long and convoluted. I picked it up again recently and was blown away by the complexity of the plot and characters.

 

[raperm]

I admit the scene was uncomfortable, the more so because it really didn't seem necessary at all. I don't consider Bev a whore for what she did, nor have I ever considered it to be in any way rape or non-consensual. It just...didn't fit, I guess. I know it goes back to Ben's earlier inner monologue about the nature of power, but it did seem a weird way to go in the book.

 

[Robert Gray]

I have to agree with you. The first time I read IT I was completely underwhelmed. So I left it for ages. I remember being not pleased with ending myself. Thought it was long and convoluted. I picked it up again recently and was blown away by the complexity of the plot and characters.

In many ways, I believe this book was groundbreaking. Many people picking it up and expecting a more traditional horror yarn were put off at first. The story is complex. The cosmology and philosophy inside were, to a point, so far beyond the average reader's understanding that things like the ending seemed to come from left field. The story of your first experience with the read and the subsequent read are not uncommon. Many people I put "back" on the book who told me they tried to read it years ago and couldn't finish it or didn't/understand it thank me. The book isn't a horror story. It is something entirely different. It is a story about being young, growing up, and recapturing youth. It is about being on the outside looking in, and it is about friendship. Are there monsters? Sure. There is a legion of them human and otherwise, but the story isn't about them. I think it is that dichotomy that really makes it such a great read.

 

[doowopgirl]

In many ways, I believe this book was groundbreaking. Many people picking it up and expecting a more traditional horror yarn were put off at first. The story is complex. The cosmology and philosophy inside were, to a point, so far beyond the average reader's understanding that things like the ending seemed to come from left field. The story of your first experience with the read and the subsequent read are not uncommon. Many people I put "back" on the book who told me they tried to read it years ago and couldn't finish it or didn't/understand it thank me. The book isn't a horror story. It is something entirely different. It is a story about being young, growing up, and recapturing youth. It is about being on the outside looking in, and it is about friendship. Are there monsters? Sure. There is a legion of them human and otherwise, but the story isn't about them. I think it is that dichotomy that really makes it such a great read.

I get you 100%. The second time I read it, The deeper happenings made sense and in a sense, were much more scary that a traditional horror story.

 

[John13]

On i side-note. I think that there are hints inside the book that Beverly was sexually molested by her father. Children that suffer from sexual abuse tend to be more sexually active.

 

[John13]

In many ways, I believe this book was groundbreaking. Many people picking it up and expecting a more traditional horror yarn were put off at first. The story is complex. The cosmology and philosophy inside were, to a point, so far beyond the average reader's understanding that things like the ending seemed to come from left field. The story of your first experience with the read and the subsequent read are not uncommon. Many people I put "back" on the book who told me they tried to read it years ago and couldn't finish it or didn't/understand it thank me. The book isn't a horror story. It is something entirely different. It is a story about being young, growing up, and recapturing youth. It is about being on the outside looking in, and it is about friendship. Are there monsters? Sure. There is a legion of them human and otherwise, but the story isn't about them. I think it is that dichotomy that really makes it such a great read.

The true horror from IT derives not from what the creature does but from the human characters actions. There are scary aspects that have nothing to do with the clown. For example the children realize at some point that adults are not trustworthy because they have surrendered to IT. They try to not think about it. And its a very scary aspect the idea that you cannot trust your parents and you are alone.

 

[staropeace]

I wish they had an anti-aging pill out. Stephen would be the first one I would give it to for sure.