Man, who would’ve thought that the guy who wrote a child orgy scene would turn out to be a pedophile?
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.
“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.
No. Jesus.
A child orgy, involving children, who are children, who had just been through a traumatic event involving a demon, that eats children. In a book from the perspective of children. Boy, that just screams pedo, doesn’t it? In other words, grow up.
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.
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.
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.
How do you know the boys didn’t fuck each other too? People spend way more thought on this issue then the fucking writer, his agent, or his publishing house did. It’s creepy from an adult perspective, I read it as a child and did not have an issue with it? Guess I’m just a pedo too, eh? The writer thought it fitting and no one blinked an eye about it until today’s puritans ha e dragged it out into the light as some signal of something. The world has real problems, now, today, that has nothing to do with a fictional story written over 3 decades ago. Get a grip!
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.
“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.
Are you saying it’s puritanical to be anti-child orgy? You’re a pedophile.
just so you know, you’re being really weird about this
Cool
no one mentioned the children fornicating with each other until you did, yea your making it wierder than it is.
He must’ve gotten his inspiration out in the tropics 🏝️
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.
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.
Art shouldn’t have limits. You know it’s not real, right?
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.
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!
…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 to not continue wasting my time with.
Bingo! (:
We can’t voice our opinions on a novel?
I mean, there is almost certainly no “The List”, “2003-02-23: Donald John Trump, 3 pedophilia, paid by bank transfer”.
There are terabytes of call logs, text messages, videos, photos, location logs, witness testimonies, whatever samples, and fuck knows what else.Tucker said it out already. They did not leave you to connect the dots; They literally left you with a complete line with only one missing dot to connect. Even the dumbest MAGAts could see through it.
You know, I’m really glad that Tucker seems slightly less batshit insane after leaving Faux, and I hope he continues in that vein. It doesn’t hurt to have a former Trump ball-licker publicly oppose him, but can we please not forget that Sucker is partially to blame for Trump being in office in the first place. He will say whatever he thinks will get him the most ratings, just like he always has.
Let’s not start quoting him as some sort of trustworthy or reliable source.
without fox constantly censoring what he really thinks.
Wow, the replies on some of King’s tweets are really telling…
No chance that chode isn’t a trump supporter.
E: also, I didn’t realize just how many of King’s books involve child abuse… I knew about the obvious ones, but goddamn…
That’s interesting. I read most of his books and I really can’t recall anything in that regard. Between he’s famous for being a horror author although he wrote a few non-fiction books. The human psyche and inner monologues of the character along with descriptions of villains and why they became the monsters they are, are recurring topics in his books. Might it be that this is the reason why they involve child abuse? Remember Dutroix? He was abused as child.
Anyways I can’t really recall any scenes in his books where he delved more into that topic than appropriate.
The “orgy” mentioned is almost certainly the gross group kid sex thing from IT. How do you defeat the evil clown demon, kid orgies apparently :(
Yeah I read “It” of course. But I was 16 or so. I often heard about the orgy but I really can’t recall it. Maybe it was censored in the localized book or I did not perceive it as that bad as people make it. AFAIK it was after they defeated the spider being in the sewers. King still did substance abuse when he wrote It and surrounding this debacle I often see people accusing him of still doing it though he is clean and dry for decades now.
Yes the scene may have been inappropriate but it certainly wasn’t meant to be pedophilia:
“In 2013, Stephen King (through his office manager Marsha DeFillipo) shared on the message board of his official site what the controversial scene in the sewers represents, and begins by explaining that, at the time, he wasn’t thinking of the sexual aspect of it. Instead, he wrote it as the connecting link between childhood and adulthood, as the Losers Club knew they had to be together again, and described it as “another version of the glass tunnel that connects the children’s library and the adult library.” King added that he’s aware that, with time, there has been more sensitivity and attention to issues like the underage sex depicted in IT’s sewer scene.”
https://screenrant.com/stephen-king-it-beverly-sewer-scene-meaning-explained/
What I find way more disgusting is the lynchmob behaviour of people in this thread who never read anything from King and don’t know him in general and them even accusing other users of being pedophiles.
I am well aware of his official explanation, but I personally think that’s bullshit. For the record, I am not in any way calling him a pedophile. His books just have a lot of fucked up shit in them, and this is one of them. I read IT when I was 13 and I kinda glossed over that part as well. When I re-read IT as an adult, I was like “holy shit”. I realize this was written during his coked up days, but that doesn’t make it OK to me. You are free to feel differently.
is that Beta Male insulting Stephen King or actually clueless about having an orgy in a book involving kids? I’ve seen my fair share of stupidity but this might be satire aswell
this is why we always, always need the /s. some people require it…
Stephen King is on the list.
I think that’s the only reason for this change in tune from the guy.
IMO, it’s blatant and transparent.
I think this is pretty unlikely, but will apologize if im wrong. My logic is that Trump already hates King and has openly feuded with him. Since there haven’t been any criminal cases yet, it seems that whatever evidence is in the files wasn’t enough for DOJ to feel like they could win a conviction, but because Trump is a petulant dumb fuck I expect he would have made Bondi bring charges for even the most tenous circumstantial evidence if it was against someone he doesn’t like. But then again Trump may think the files give him leverage over anyone even barely mentioned in the files and not want to lose that leverage, so I could be absolutely wrong.
Well, you have no reason to apologize, at this point, everyone is just speculating. However, I think the only reasonable and logical explanation, is that Stephen King is somehow, involved. He never was in any capacity or position to know everything in the case in detail. So he’s either lying about his certainty and knowledge, or he is involved, no other inference can be made.
I mean, he wrote IT so idk if this would surprise anyone lol
You telling me there’s a chance that a writer, known for snorting enough cocaine to kill an elephant whilst writing a story where a group of boys run a train on a young girl, might have visited an island known for its drugs and sex trafficking young girls?
🤔
I know it sounds like a stretch, but yes.
I don’t think a lot of people read the book. Anyone who has knows that Stephen King shouldn’t be around children.
bro self reported
why release the list of clients? all three pedos are putting themselves in the spotlight already
Huh. I thought he publicly quit twitter and moved to blue sky?
https://xcancel.com/stephenking/status/1857165864346267891?s=46&t=PJVWm80PofrGWNJIfp3Bsw
Tell me you’re on that list without telling me you’re on that list.
Removed by mod
I’d like to remind this thread not to jump to conclusions. It’s not exactly unheard of for a notorious coke addict to be confidently wrong about something. I’ll believe he’s a sicko when I see his name on the list and not a second sooner.
I have a suggestion: Just assume every billionaire diddles kids anyway.
nah, his books says otherwise, it had tons of references to pedophelia in it.
That’s like saying everyone who writes a murder mystery is a murderer.
While that’s accurate, there’s also IT.
The book has a completely unnecessary, random pre-teen orgy in a sewer.
Also:
This also reminded me that in his short story “The Jaunt” Stephen King felt the need to include the following lines for no apparent reason:
Ricky and Pat were watching him seriously, his son twelve, his daughter nine. He told himself again that Ricky would be deep in the swamp of puberty and his daughter would likely be developing breast by the time they got back to earth, and again found it difficult to believe.
This.
Everyone knows the scene from IT and how disgusting it is but many do not understand that King has a long history of pedophilic tendencies when writing teenage girls in almost all of his works.
In Carrie he has a section that takes an odd focus on how nice her legs look, in Under the Dome there is a lengthy description of an pubescent girl’s pubic hair, etc…
Like, I get he is a horror writer and that means depicting scenes that are intentionally written to be uncomfortable is part of the genre, which includes scenes of sexual violence and abuse, but there are ways to accomplish these depictions without the unnecessary sexualization of underage girls.
I never said that.
Said what? Ricky doesn’t say anything in that quote.
spakethed with thine mind
Mine mind, or thine mind?
We Are All One Mind
And the graphic description of a child being raped in “The Library Policeman”
And the sewers scene in IT.
Theres also a short story where a daughter, now grown, dwells on her dad cumming with his daughter in his lap during an eclipse when she was like 9.
gross, im not surprised, im guessing thats why he was trying to keep things at bay when he was anti-trump for a while.
JFC how much of this shit is there?
Almost all of his works, especially the earlier ones during his coke years, are sprinkled throughout with unnecessary sexualization of teenage girls.
hawking was seen with ghislaine or epstein at least through the photos.
Here’s Hawking on Epstein’s island in 2006 [1.1]:
[1]
References
- Type: Article. Title: “Epstein befriended a slew of scientists. New records contain ‘orgy’ allegation against one”. Author: “Shirsho Dasgupta”. Publisher: “Miami Herald”. Published: 2024-01-05T23:54:44-05:00. Accessed: 2025-07-17T05:20Z. URI: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article283847883.html.
- Type: Footnote.
Stephen Hawking, center, during an event arranged by Jeffrey Epstein on the financier’s private island in 2006.
- Type: Footnote.
I’m sorry, but something about him being there in that state is just so funny. How and why the fuck? Can we even trust prominent people anymore?
- Type: Article. Title: “Epstein befriended a slew of scientists. New records contain ‘orgy’ allegation against one”. Author: “Shirsho Dasgupta”. Publisher: “Miami Herald”. Published: 2024-01-05T23:54:44-05:00. Accessed: 2025-07-17T05:20Z. URI: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article283847883.html.
I’m confused. Epstein definitely did the crimes of trafficking children to be raped by wealthy people.
Why would a client list not be a real?
Even if there isn’t a document with a big header that says “Client List” and firm documentation of what crimes were committed, we know there are flight logs, there are victim statements, and there are records of financial transactions.
That is absolutely enough to bring charges against at least some of these people. We are accepting a false narrative that there has to be some chiseled in stone singular document listing bad actors.
I think it’s very possible there isn’t an actual “client list”.
I think it’s more about making a list of visitors to the island that have somehow supported Epstein around that time.
“Have some fun on my island. Also, can you help me get a loan and this bill passed?”
I fully expected there to be a safe somewhere full of blackmail dossiers. Though I’m sure that has been put to the torch by now, if it ever existed. The best we can do now is compile lists from secondary sources.
Blackmail dossiers would also contribute to determining clients yeah. So flight logs, weird lobby stuff, suspicious messages, mysterious meetings, statements from children and wives of these men, etc.
Because Epstein didn’t have a file in excel called “client list”, but there are trusted sources that when put together create a pedophile list.
he probably had a long of visitors to the island, and isnt epstein /maxwell also working for Israeli intelligence too.
Whether the list is literally real or not doesn’t matter at this point. It’s whether you can trust whatever list this administration produces.
