Had no problem with that scene at all. It was clear to me that it was meant as a way of bonding, growing, showing love and seeking strength. Then i have bigger problems with Koontz Golden retrievers
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
Saw no problem with it. Connection not sex.
Just meant it wasn't sex for the pleasure of it.Well, except for the sex.
Just meant it wasn't sex for the pleasure of it.
I would probably have preferred to have my child with me than lost in the sewers of Derry.Still, though, if you had a child the age of the young characters in IT and you found out he/she had sex and, when you pressed him/her about it, he/she said, "But I have a connection with him/her like no one I've ever known!", would your first thought be, "Oh, well that's different then!"?
No, but if I found out they just faced an eternal monster that lived under the city and they only way they would find their way back was to re-issue a magical bond they had by doing that then I would be a little more understanding. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would be okay for 11 year olds to have group sex! It was the situation, plus it was fiction, e.g. an eternal monster living under a city.Still, though, if you had a child the age of the young characters in IT and you found out he/she had sex and, when you pressed him/her about it, he/she said, "But I have a connection with him/her like no one I've ever known!", would your first thought be, "Oh, well that's different then!"?
No, but if I found out they just faced an eternal monster that lived under the city and they only way they would find their way back was to re-issue a magical bond they had by doing that then I would be a little more understanding. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would be okay for 11 year olds to have group sex! It was the situation, plus it was fiction, e.g. an eternal monster living under a city.
Don'.. think it was a misstep at all. So no surely about it. Opinions divided.
Just because we happen to have different opinions why get insulting? That is SURELY not necessary?Get on with your bad self and keep that flame of...tween orgies...alive.
Just because we happen to have different opinions why get insulting? That is SURELY not necessary?
Don't worry. It takes alot more to insult me. I was only referring to "bad self" that you wrote and just intended to stop any eventual future namecalling before it happened so to speak. As to why i never saw it as an orgy in the first place. Actually, not until i came to this site have i heard of that opinion. Never crossed my mind. I always thought it was crystalclear that it was about friendship, bonding and finding oneself again after that fight with the monster. Could it have been done in another way? Of course it could! Would it have been better? Impossible to know. I havent read any different version so cant judge. I have only been saying that it worked without a hitch for me. But thats me. And you are you. Two different way of looking at it, thats all. Glad thats all cleared up. Shake hands and walk off into the sunset? Enjoy your next Kingbook! I know i will.My post featured absolutely no name-calling whatsoever, and also featured a "no hard feelings" winky face, so no matter what insult was taken, none was ever offered. I am a bit put off that you keep defending King's use of an orgy of twelve year-olds to depict a "magical bond" as not only dramatically and morally sound, but as the best manner in which to make that point, yet you won't actually explain why, but I don't intend to actually call you names over it.
My post featured absolutely no name-calling whatsoever, and also featured a "no hard feelings" winky face, so no matter what insult was taken, none was ever offered. I am a bit put off that you keep defending King's use of an orgy of twelve year-olds to depict a "magical bond" as not only dramatically and morally sound, but as the best manner in which to make that point, yet you won't actually explain why, but I don't intend to call you names over it.
First, the book was written (or at least published) in 1986, and like to admit it or not... things have changed a great deal from then to now. Also, the children he was writing about, were living in 1958... an even bigger jump.Just because twelve year-olds, through moral relativism, might have been more sexually active and productive in ancient cultures, that has no direct play here (your fragile "ancient magic" argument aside)--we're dealing with children of the modern age in this book, so application of modern, dare I say evolved, morality and ethics does have application in this discussion, and of everything you've asserted in your reply, it is your apparent wholesale derision of my right to believe so that I find the most alarming and distasteful.
In the end, though, all I seek from discussion with you (which you have provided) and others (which have not provided) on this topic is exactly why you, as readers, are comfortable with sanctioning something considered so verboten in modern society.