Books with very inappropriate scenes w/ children

[I.Dup.]

This is something that has bothered me for years. Why can books get away with describing very detailed sexu*l acts involving children? I have read a few of these over the years and the scenes tend to come up so suddenly and before you know it, you've read it even if you didn't want to and the picture of this happening is in your head. I find it very disturbing and wonder if it bothers anyone else? I think The Lovely Bones had this, a couple others I've read, and just recently Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood.

[Murphy101]

I have no idea what you mean by "get away with" as it's completely legal.

 

In any book about violence, I would expect descriptions of the violence committed.

 

I thought lovely bones was just an awful book in general. Felt the same about The Shack. Maybe bc of the subject matter. Tho I think it was just the stupid meandering nonscensical narratives.

[PinkInTheBlue]

I've never, ever hit that in a book and I'm pretty open to reading a bunch of books. Hmmm...I guess I have never been fortunate (heavy sarcasm) enough to get hit with that. :bored: I would be making a pretty instant Amazon, or elsewhere, review if I did. That's nuts!

[I.Dup.]

I have no idea what you mean by "get away with" as it's completely legal.

 

 

FWIW, I'm not talking about violence so much as extremely graphic sexu*l scenes. I usually slam the book shut, feel violated, and wonder why it's so popular? Obviously it doesn't bother people all that much? I wonder what makes child sex acts depicted in print different from child p*rn, I guess that's what I'm asking?

 

I've never, ever hit that in a book and I'm pretty open to reading a bunch of books. Hmmm...I guess I have never been fortunate (heavy sarcasm) enough to get hit with that. :bored: I would be making a pretty instant Amazon, or elsewhere, review if I did. That's nuts!

 

 

You are lucky. Oryx and Crake had an extremely graphic scene, I couldn't read anymore after that. There have been a couple others I've come across as well. :(

[Parrothead]

Because we don't require warning labels on our books. I've not come across anything like what you have described, but I've been gobsmacked a time or two when reading an action adventure story or a thriller only to read into someone's explicit bedroom activities.

 

I wouldn't mind a discrete label or two on some books.

[EKS]

None of this bothers me at all.

[Elizabeth in MN]

Well, it depends on the age of the "children" involved. Are we talking younger teens, teens, older teens, toddlers?

 

Sex in general doesn't upset me. Pedophilia, on the other hand, upsets me a great deal.

[I.Dup.]

S*x in general doesn't bother me, I'm talking about with small children being molested and forced to do sexu*l acts. It's very gross.

[Violet Crown]

I wonder what makes child sex acts depicted in print different from child p*rn, I guess that's what I'm asking?

 

If you mean legally, the first amendment protects it so long as no actual minor was involved in producing it. So anything in print is legal.

 

But I agree with you. For years people were telling me to read Walker Percy. So I read the Thanatos Syndrome. Graphic descriptions of child rape, apparently meant to be darkly funny? Ick. No thank you.

[PinkInTheBlue]

S*x in general doesn't bother me, I'm talking about with small children being molested and forced to do sexu*l acts. It's very gross.

 

That's what I assumed you were talking about. How can you not be bothered by that? Disgusting and disturbing

[Farrar]

But the point of literature is sometimes to provoke an emotional response, or to raise questions or bring issues to light. Both the books named do those things.

[misty.warden]

I don't think I've ever been surprised by this kind of content, in the sense that I didn't see it coming or know it was going to be part of the story. Books like The Lovely Bones (which has the phrase "brutally r**ed" on the back cover), The End of Alice (about a criminal in prison for a similar issue), are not for everyone (or even most people IMO) but I never felt that they hid the fact that those things happen in the story from the reader.

 

Any graphic content of violence and sexuality against adults or children is disturbing on some level, I don't think there is a hierarchy of "worse-ness" or that the descriptions of icky things happening to adults is any more appropriate for any type of media, but it's the reader's responsibility to decide if the premise of the book is something they want to expose themselves to.

[I.Dup.]

I agree with you on the warning of Lovely Bones. But there have been others with no indication at all, like Oryx and Crake for example. It started as a man alone surviving in futuristic times and he has flashbacks, one of which was of a girl being forced to perform sexu*l acts. It came out of nowhere. There was another one similar on Oprah's book club that I read one year, I cannot remember the name of it now. No indication given that there would be that kind of content.

[SKL]

I too feel this should not be fictionalized for entertainment purposes. I don't mind so much if it's to make people aware of the problem or some such. But I've seen child rape etc. in "thriller" fiction etc. Do people willingly pay money to get voyeuristic enjoyment out of such "literature"? And what do folks think of someone who would sit and imagine such things vividly enough to write them down and then sell them? Could you imagine sitting down at your computer and composing such a thing? Yeah, it's disturbing.

[Reya]

I judged a dramatic interp competition one year. I was SO FREAKING SICK of teenagers reading/reciting poetry and prose about rape that I could scream. It was like everything was Shel Silverstein or rape. And I was thinking, "None of these girls even really know what they're reading about. They chose these pieces to be Serious, but they were just so incredibly, excruciatingly inappropriate."

 

Gah. And when I was in high school, one of the one-act play competitions from another school was about gang rape. And I was like, "EXCUSE ME? did you just reinact a gang rape on a high school auditorium stage with underage CHILDREN so you could be seen to be dealing with Serious Issues?!?!?"

 

Ironically, I was pregnant with DS when I did the judging of the dramatic interp competition, and it was being in the local high school and seeing the level of students that pushed me over the edge into homeschooling.

[Murphy101]

Serious issues are never appropriate. We should all be far too polite to discuss, much less write about, anything like sex, drugs, religious conflicts, racism. It's just rude. And for politeness sake, if someone should dare to do so, they should only hint about it or whitewash it to avoid someone feeling uncomfortable.

 

Can't believe this is even being seriously discussed.

 

Writers and readers write and read about subjects that are real and unreal. Some of it isn't pretty. They write with detail to place the reader in the story. They write about all kinds of sin and taboo things and the graphic ways humans do those things because that's just as much a part of life as roses and sunshine.

 

If you don't want to read about dark and awful things, then I can certainly understand that. I don't care too either most of the time. Real life is hard enough, I tend to prefer light and laughter for my casual reading and TV enjoyment.

 

But it's simply ridiculous to insinuate that writers who do write on unsavory topics or readers who read it are all depraved individuals. Do you also think cops, morticians, taxidermist, and more who choose to work in graphic and disturbing subject matter must be mentally deprived to do so?

 

This is the second thread to insinuate the writers who write about unpleasant topics and those that read their books are somehow ... What? Morally questionable?

 

 

 

 

[Murphy101]

I judged a dramatic interp competition one year. I was SO FREAKING SICK of teenagers reading/reciting poetry and prose about rape that I could scream. It was like everything was Shel Silverstein or rape. And I was thinking, "None of these girls even really know what they're reading about. They chose these pieces to be Serious, but they were just so incredibly, excruciatingly inappropriate."

Gah. And when I was in high school, one of the one-act play competitions from another school was about gang rape. And I was like, "EXCUSE ME? did you just reinact a gang rape on a high school auditorium stage with underage CHILDREN so you could be seen to be dealing with Serious Issues?!?!?"

Ironically, I was pregnant with DS when I did the judging of the dramatic interp competition, and it was being in the local high school and seeing the level of students that pushed me over the edge into homeschooling.

 

1 in 4 teenagers are victims of sexual assault. So roughly 25% of that audience needs to know this is NOT an inappropriate subject to speak out about even if it makes the other 75% feel uncomfortable to hear it. They were teenagers reading about life. For approx 25%, it might have been a reflection of their life or the life of someone they personally know. So yes, I think it was completely and entirely appropriate. I think it is inappropriate for grown adults to be more upset about being made to feel uncomfortable.

[Reya]

Martha, some writers do it as cheap exploitation. Actually, I'd say MOST. The Lovely Bones became a bestseller because of the salacious content, not the quality, which stunk. Sex doesn't make a book grown up, and distasteful sex doesn't make it Lit-er-uh-toooooor. I have sat through more terrifically bad poems about rape than you can shake a stick at.

 

I'm not saying that it should be censored, but some kind of rating/warning would be nice. In high school, I checked out this huge historical fiction book that promised to be full of political intrigue and stuff of that sort--GREAT! Not 10 pages in was a sex scene so abrupt and bizarre that I sent the book straight back. And I read racy books. I can't describe it here, obviously, but the least disturbing element was that one of the participants was a priest--as in, on a scale of 1-10 of disturbingness, that was a 1 within that scene.

[Farrar]

Serious issues are never appropriate. We should all be far too polite to discuss, much less write about, anything like sex, drugs, religious conflicts, racism. It's just rude. And for politeness sake, if someone should dare to do so, they should only hint about it or whitewash it to avoid someone feeling uncomfortable.

 

Can't believe this is even being seriously discussed.

 

Writers and readers write and read about subjects that are real and unreal. Some of it isn't pretty. They write with detail to place the reader in the story. They write about all kinds of sin and taboo things and the graphic ways humans do those things because that's just as much a part of life as roses and sunshine.

 

If you don't want to read about dark and awful things, then I can certainly understand that. I don't care too either most of the time. Real life is hard enough, I tend to prefer light and laughter for my casual reading and TV enjoyment.

 

But it's simply ridiculous to insinuate that writers who do write on unsavory topics or readers who read it are all depraved individuals. Do you also think cops, morticians, taxidermist, and more who choose to work in graphic and disturbing subject matter must be mentally deprived to do so?

 

This is the second thread to insinuate the writers who write about unpleasant topics and those that read their books are somehow ... What? Morally questionable?

 

Thank you. Exactly. I was trying to figure out how to say exactly this.

[misty.warden]

Serious issues are never appropriate. We should all be far too polite to discuss, much less write about, anything like sex, drugs, religious conflicts, racism. It's just rude. And for politeness sake, if someone should dare to do so, they should only hint about it or whitewash it to avoid someone feeling uncomfortable.

 

Can't believe this is even being seriously discussed.

 

Writers and readers write and read about subjects that are real and unreal. Some of it isn't pretty. They write with detail to place the reader in the story. They write about all kinds of sin and taboo things and the graphic ways humans do those things because that's just as much a part of life as roses and sunshine.

 

If you don't want to read about dark and awful things, then I can certainly understand that. I don't care too either most of the time. Real life is hard enough, I tend to prefer light and laughter for my casual reading and TV enjoyment.

 

But it's simply ridiculous to insinuate that writers who do write on unsavory topics or readers who read it are all depraved individuals. Do you also think cops, morticians, taxidermist, and more who choose to work in graphic and disturbing subject matter must be mentally deprived to do so?

 

This is the second thread to insinuate the writers who write about unpleasant topics and those that read their books are somehow ... What? Morally questionable?

 

:thumbup: I think I may be in love with your brain.

[Farrar]

Martha, some writers do it as cheap exploitation. Actually, I'd say MOST.

 

Really? Alice Sebold and Margaret Atwood are depraved people who are trying to salaciously titillate and exploit? I just disagree with that on every level.

[Elizabeth in MN]

Serious issues are never appropriate. We should all be far too polite to discuss, much less write about, anything like sex, drugs, religious conflicts, racism. It's just rude. And for politeness sake, if someone should dare to do so, they should only hint about it or whitewash it to avoid someone feeling uncomfortable.

 

Can't believe this is even being seriously discussed.

 

Writers and readers write and read about subjects that are real and unreal. Some of it isn't pretty. They write with detail to place the reader in the story. They write about all kinds of sin and taboo things and the graphic ways humans do those things because that's just as much a part of life as roses and sunshine.

 

If you don't want to read about dark and awful things, then I can certainly understand that. I don't care too either most of the time. Real life is hard enough, I tend to prefer light and laughter for my casual reading and TV enjoyment.

 

But it's simply ridiculous to insinuate that writers who do write on unsavory topics or readers who read it are all depraved individuals. Do you also think cops, morticians, taxidermist, and more who choose to work in graphic and disturbing subject matter must be mentally deprived to do so?

 

This is the second thread to insinuate the writers who write about unpleasant topics and those that read their books are somehow ... What? Morally questionable?

 

I both agree and disagree with this, For example - the movie "The Butterfly Effect" deals with making child pornography. It does not graphically show it, or even directly talk about it but the issue is there.

[AimeeM]

S*x in general doesn't bother me, I'm talking about with small children being molested and forced to do sexu*l acts. It's very gross.

It may be gross but it's very real. I appreciate "real" books - pretty or not.

[PinkInTheBlue]

I'm definitely not coming at this from the viewpoint of writers should never write about the tough things that happen in ugly, real life. Not by far! I'm also not saying writers should be censored. I'm saying, as a pp did, that most of this is used for sensationalism and shock value. It's to shock and insult not address what's really happening out there.

[misty.warden]

Martha, some writers do it as cheap exploitation. Actually, I'd say MOST. The Lovely Bones became a bestseller because of the salacious content, not the quality, which stunk. Sex doesn't make a book grown up, and distasteful sex doesn't make it Lit-er-uh-toooooor. I have sat through more terrifically bad poems about rape than you can shake a stick at.

 

I'm not saying that it should be censored, but some kind of rating/warning would be nice. In high school, I checked out this huge historical fiction book that promised to be full of political intrigue and stuff of that sort--GREAT! Not 10 pages in was a sex scene so abrupt and bizarre that I sent the book straight back. And I read racy books. I can't describe it here, obviously, but the least disturbing element was that one of the participants was a priest--as in, on a scale of 1-10 of disturbingness, that was a 1 within that scene.

 

Who should do the ratings? Everyone's experience is subjective and even within this thread we have differing opinions on what is more or less disturbing. That bad poem about rape may have changed someone's view of life, your personal enjoyment was probably not the reason the writer wrote it.

 

FYI, the MPAA has not prevented crap movies from being made, but it has prevented good movies about serious issues from being shown to huge groups of people determined solely by age (which is not the best method of judging maturity.) Something like that for books would damn us all to a future of literature dumbed down to what a dubious authority thinks is appropriate.

 

And BTW, your mocking does not make you the voice of reason the same way sex does not make a book mature.

[AimeeM]

I'm definitely not coming at this from the viewpoint of writers should never write about the tough things that happen in ugly, real life. Not by far! I'm also not saying writers should be censored. I'm saying, as a pp did, that most of this is used for sensationalism and shock value. It's to shock and insult not address what's really happening out there.

But these things really DO happen "out there", even if it didn't happen directly to the author or the book is a work of fiction... it still really happens. A Child Called It? Definitely not pretty or "appropriate", but very real. Seemed sensational to this child from the suburbs but it was real all the same.

[Farrar]

I'm definitely not coming at this from the viewpoint of writers should never write about the tough things that happen in ugly, real life. Not by far! I'm also not saying writers should be censored. I'm saying, as a pp did, that most of this is used for sensationalism and shock value. It's to shock and insult not address what's really happening out there.

 

 

I think it would be easier for me to understand this conversation in that context if the OP had started with trashy thrillers as her examples. Yes, there are definitely writers who use shocking events of all kinds to sell books and that's not something I like, though as someone who believes strongly in free speech and generally believes in the market of ideas, I think you let them do it and then ignore them, which I'm usually fine with doing.

 

However, the OP chose two authors who are respected literary writers. One of them, Alice Sebold, actually experienced rape as a teenager and therefore it's no surprise that she might want to explore issues of s*xual violence in her writing. And the other one, Margaret Atwood, is an author who has been using shocking scenarios and dystopian settings for decades to explore the darker side of all kinds of issues. She is a Booker prize winner. She's undisputedly one of Canada's greatest living writers and one of the greatest female novelists of all time. If "trashy sensationalism" is the gist of the OP's argument, then she undermined it from the very start by giving the precise counter-example in a book of great literary merit.

[Elfknitter.#]

Because Lovely Bones is being used as an example of this depravity, the OP is aware that Ms. Sebold was a victim of rape? Not every author just has this idea floating around to shock people. Some are actually trying to make the reader aware that things like this do happen everyday. I understand not wanting to read such an item and it's a reader's right to pass it up.

[SKL]

I disagree that the examples included in pulp fiction are "real." This is someone's vivid imagination being exploited for money. IMO it's hurtful to those who have actually suffered this type of abuse.

 

No, it does not need to be censored, but I do find it disturbing that some people consider this an appropriate career or entertainment choice. I can only imagine my kid happening to read over my shoulder as I write or read such descriptions. "Oh, so this is what you do for a living / in your spare time?"

[Reya]

1 in 4 teenagers are victims of sexual assault. So roughly 25% of that audience needs to know this is NOT an inappropriate subject to speak out about even if it makes the other 75% feel uncomfortable to hear it. They were teenagers reading about life. For approx 25%, it might have been a reflection of their life or the life of someone they personally know. So yes, I think it was completely and entirely appropriate. I think it is inappropriate for grown adults to be more upset about being made to feel uncomfortable.

 

 

"Sexual assault" statistics of that sort includes ME, as I had a creep rub his (clothed) erection against me when I was cornered in a room. (I punched him.) That's not rape or anything like it.

 

These were protected, upper-middle class Honors students from an upper class neighborhood who were in no way talking about anything they knew. Similarly, the school that did that one-act play was from the richest high school in the state, with 0% poverty and near-0% middle class and almost no crime. The schools that came from areas where girls might have actually suffered assault would not have so trivialized and exploited it--because that's what it was. It was cheap and gross.

 

It was creepy because the girls so obviously had no idea what they were talking about and chose something controversial because it generally scores well in these competitions. They hadn't written this. They had it picked out for them by a coach. It was absurd and inappropriate.

[Reya]

Margaret Atwood has made her entire career on trashy sensationalism. Every time she's in the news, it's for some absurd new stunt. She's the Madonna of writing. If there's any absurdity, it's in the OP NOT expecting cheap shock when it comes to Atwood.

 

There are famous, well-respected artists who are considered great because they have TeA with a crucifix or make portraits of religious figures out of poo. Doesn't mean that it's not cheap.

 

Sebold's book was a bestseller solely because of the "brave" subject matter--like James Frey's book. Sebold's background wasn't made up. Frey's was. Doesn't really make them all that much different.

 

Terry Pratchett is--well, mostly was--fifty times the writer either one of them will ever be. Heck, want to go for pulp? Stephen King at his best is ten times the writer Atwood ever is. King would balk at the cheap things Atwood pulls, and he IS usually writing for thrills.

[Murphy101]

Martha, some writers do it as cheap exploitation. Actually, I'd say MOST. The Lovely Bones became a bestseller because of the salacious content, not the quality, which stunk.

 

Actually there is NOTHING salacious in it. The rape and murder scene is the only excellent writing in the entire book. And it is written from the scared, confused, in pain, and more perspective of the victim, not the perpetrator. What makes the scene disturbing is she wrote that section so well, the reader can place themselves in the mind of an innocent elementary girl being brutalized. It's truely awful. Just just awful. But that scene? It is the only thing in the entire book that is well written bc it takes talent to write well enough to do that. Absolutely hated the book and felt sick after reading that scene. But I give credit where it is due, the writer managed to honor and fully express the horror of a child victim.

 

In high school, I checked out this huge historical fiction book that promised to be full of political intrigue and stuff of that sort--GREAT! Not 10 pages in was a sex scene so abrupt and bizarre that I sent the book straight back. And I read racy books. I can't describe it here, obviously, but the least disturbing element was that one of the participants was a priest--as in, on a scale of 1-10 of disturbingness, that was a 1 within that scene.

 

 

The minute you mentioned political intrigue, I assumed there was sex involved.

Pending the source, I wouldn't be surprised if priests were involved. :/

 

I'm adamently against ratings. It's nothing more than another form of censorship and it is often useless as a tool anyways.

 

I'm saying, as a pp did, that most of this is used for sensationalism and shock value. It's to shock and insult not address what's really happening out there.

 

 

I have no idea what you are even talking about. Of course writers write to create sensation and emotion in the readers. Nothing new about that. It's not as though Shakepeare didn't do it.

 

How do you expect it to "address what's really happening out there"? What does that even mean? Writers write about things people do, say, feel and think. They aren't addressing anything. Maybe bringing it to light in all it's awful ugliness is how they address it. I guess. Maybe. I don't expect writers to address things. If anything I get annoyed by blatant PSA lecturing trying to disguise as writing. Want a writing that addresses something? Get a nonfiction pamphlet from the health dept. Not novel.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

"Sexual assault" statistics of that sort includes ME, as I had a creep rub his (clothed) erection against me when I was cornered in a room. (I punched him.) That's not rape or anything like it.

 

These were protected, upper-middle class Honors students from an upper class neighborhood who were in no way talking about anything they knew. Similarly, the school that did that one-act play was from the richest high school in the state, with 0% poverty and near-0% middle class and almost no crime. The schools that came from areas where girls might have actually suffered assault would not have so trivialized and exploited it--because that's what it was. It was cheap and gross.

 

It was creepy because the girls so obviously had no idea what they were talking about and chose something controversial because it generally scores well in these competitions. They hadn't written this. They had it picked out for them by a coach. It was absurd and inappropriate.

 

 

Girls from upper middle class neighborhoods are never victims of rape? Yet another Reya gem.

[SKL]

Well, this will just have to be one of those areas of life I don't get. Personally I don't enjoy reading about anyone's sexual exploits (nor seeing PDA or watching it in movies etc.). I'm just glad I have better things to do.

[misty.warden]

 

"Sexual assault" statistics of that sort includes ME, as I had a creep rub his (clothed) erection against me when I was cornered in a room. (I punched him.) That's not rape or anything like it. Kudos on being assertive when faced with sexual assault, however "like [rape]" is EXACTLY what that was, which is why it's included in the term "sexual assault."

 

These were protected, upper-middle class Honors students from an upper class neighborhood who were in no way talking about anything they knew. Aaand you've instantly lost any credibility here. Insinuate those girls' Honors classes or rich parents make them immune to knowing about sexual assault? I must have missed that part in Health class that said only poor girls can be raped. Similarly, the school that did that one-act play was from the richest high school in the state, with 0% poverty and near-0% middle class and almost no crime. The schools that came from areas where girls might have actually suffered assault would not have so trivialized and exploited it--because that's what it was. It was cheap and gross.

 

It was creepy because the girls so obviously had no idea what they were talking about and chose something controversial because it generally scores well in these competitions. They hadn't written this. They had it picked out for them by a coach. It was absurd and inappropriate.

 

[aggieamy]

"Sexual assault" statistics of that sort includes ME, as I had a creep rub his (clothed) erection against me when I was cornered in a room. (I punched him.) That's not rape or anything like it.

 

These were protected, upper-middle class Honors students from an upper class neighborhood who were in no way talking about anything they knew. Similarly, the school that did that one-act play was from the richest high school in the state, with 0% poverty and near-0% middle class and almost no crime. The schools that came from areas where girls might have actually suffered assault would not have so trivialized and exploited it--because that's what it was. It was cheap and gross.

 

It was creepy because the girls so obviously had no idea what they were talking about and chose something controversial because it generally scores well in these competitions. They hadn't written this. They had it picked out for them by a coach. It was absurd and inappropriate.

 

 

This is an alarming thing to think. Women from all races, economic, and social backgrounds deal with rape. This isn't a poor people problem or non-white problem. This is a problem that every woman needs to be aware of and not trivialize that it's not thier problem.

 

I'm probably one of the the most sensitive reads I know. Stuff just sticks with me and won't leave my brain. I've read Orxy and Crake. It's supposed to be horrific. It's supposed to make us angry with a society that would allow that. It's supposed to make us feel protective of the child that happened to. BUT it wasn't a real child. It was a story that was supposed to elicit a response of outrage that horrible things can happen to a child. It did a good job of that.

[Murphy101]

Terry Pratchett is--well, mostly was--fifty times the writer either one of them will ever be.

 

What the heck are you smoking over there?

I have read several Terry Pratchett novels and he absolutely writes shocking and sensationalist sex scenes. Frequently! IIRC in Bad Omens (ETA: or is it good omens? Something like that. ) he has a teen main character who has to deal with orgies before chapter 3. And it added absolutely nothing to the story line and was rather abrupt to my shocked mind.

 

Good grief. Some days I think I live in an alternate universe. If you are going to complain about sensationist, voyeuristic, shocking sex scenes - fine. Don't read it bc you don't like it. Yay for freedom in America and all that. But it makes non sense at all to complain about it while praising someone who in fact does what you complain about.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Moderator
Removed name-calling.

[SKL]

The people I know who have been raped / assaulted would never have performed a re-enactment in front of peers at school. Especially not as a competition. Personally I would have found it terribly crass then as I do now. Plus it has the effect of desensitizing youngsters to something that really should be taken seriously. Next thing you know it will be "cool" to say you've been raped.

[Joshin]

These, for lack of a better term, puritan values, is why we have a Banned Book month celebrated in the the US, land of the free. As a writer, I have written scenes that have left me shaking and in tears at the end. Do you think these authors actually enjoy writing every word they do? No, but they write them because they have to, they write it because they have to get it out of their head and onto the paper. Heck, they may not have even experienced what they write about, but a news story may have grabbed them and made them shake, and they have to get the emotion out on paper. Not all stories are for everyone, and everyone is a critic, but talk of censorship? We have enough of that already, thank you very much.

 

As for rich girls don't get raped? That insinuation just leaves me speechless.

[Elfknitter.#]

Wow.

[Mrs Mungo]

Margaret Atwood has made her entire career on trashy sensationalism. Every time she's in the news, it's for some absurd new stunt. She's the Madonna of writing. If there's any absurdity, it's in the OP NOT expecting cheap shock when it comes to Atwood.

 

Terry Pratchett is--well, mostly was--fifty times the writer either one of them will ever be. Heck, want to go for pulp? Stephen King at his best is ten times the writer Atwood ever is. King would balk at the cheap things Atwood pulls, and he IS usually writing for thrills.

 

WHAT?! Have you even actually read Margaret Atwood? You're suggesting that literary gems like The Penelopiad are nothing more than absurd stunts? I like Terry Pratchett, but it's meant to be mind-candy; his work never really touches on deep or controversial themes. And Stephen King? What the heck? You're saying there aren't sexual themes involving children in his work? Uhhh...have you read It or The Dead Zone? It seems to be his goal to make you think people are constantly walking around thinking of some random perverted idea. This is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on this forum and that's saying something.

 

To the topic in general, there are people who have complained on this forum about SWB's high school history book containing a reference to "plowing a damp field." I imagine that those same people are not going to want their high school aged kids to read Gilgamesh or The Miller's Tale when it comes time. My kids have read both of those (along with the damp field reference). On the other hand, I know my limits. You couldn't pay me enough to read a Chuck Palahniuk book because I am aware of what they contain. And that's the moral of this thread-know your limits and know what you're reading.

[Liz CA]

But the point of literature is sometimes to provoke an emotional response, or to raise questions or bring issues to light. Both the books named do those things.

 

 

Perhaps they do. I just know myself well enough that I would rather not be "provoked" into that kind of emotion and agree with Parrothead that a discreet warning label may help.

It took me days, rather weeks to get that image in "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" out of my head. I am just not made for this kind of stuff.

Those of you who can stomach it and are propelled into some kind of action (in a positive sense, of course) are to be applauded.

I have just recently become aware of how pervasive sex trafficking is in this country and I support organizations fighting it but I would rather not get all the details, well... again because of that mental picture that I carry around with me.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

Perhaps they do. I just know myself well enough that I would rather not be "provoked" into that kind of emotion and agree with Parrothead that a discreet warning label may help.

It took me days, rather weeks to get that image in "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" out of my head. I am just not made for this kind of stuff.

Those of you who can stomach it and are propelled into some kind of action (in a positive sense, of course) are to be applauded.

I have just recently become aware of how pervasive sex trafficking is in this country and I support organizations fighting it but I would rather not get all the details, well... again because of that mental picture that I carry around with me.

 

Which, I think is fine. Again, there are books that I have zero plans of reading because I don't like certain mental images either. But, I don't think they should be illegal. I don't think all of the authors are merely trying to be salacious. I don't think the authors or readers of such books are depraved (except maybe Chuck Palahniuk ;)). If there is necrophilia, then don't recommend it to me, please. But, that's on me, not a judgment on everyone else. I think we are on the same page here, which is different than what was being said by others.

[Reya]

Who should do the ratings? ....

 

FYI, the MPAA has not prevented crap movies from being made, but it has prevented good movies about serious issues from being shown to huge groups of people determined solely by age (which is not the best method of judging maturity.) Something like that for books would damn us all to a future of literature dumbed down to what a dubious authority thinks is appropriate.

 

And BTW, your mocking does not make you the voice of reason the same way sex does not make a book mature.

 

Actually, publishing companies ALREADY do it. Most genre fiction must fit within certain requirements for a given line, including expectations for violence, language, and explicitness. Many authors are asked to change one or several of these things regularly, in various directions. This is true for non-genre lines that are trying to maintain a certain identity as well. Just because you, as a consumer, are ignorant of this doesn't mean that it doesn't happen All. The. Time.

 

Publishers could voluntarily use a rating system just like the video game industry does. Nothing keeps you from taking your kid into any movie you want him to see--and nothing should keep your kid from reading any book you want him or her to. Do you really think that Shades of Grey is on middle school bookshelves right now? Of course it isn't. And it's not because of its literary value or lack thereof, either--there's TONS of twaddle on school bookshelves, and that's fine, too. Twaddle can be fun. I have nothing against twaddle, either.

 

Look, I write books for a living, and most of them have very explicit content. I'm not arguing that such books shouldn't be written. I'm not saying explicit books are inherently cheap, either. Jennifer Weiner writes frank erotica, and however morally objectionable some find her writing, it isn't CHEAP, and she, too, is ten times the writer Atwood would ever be. There are plenty of absurdly fluffy explicit writers who write silly humor who aren't cheap, either, because they aren't using shock to manipulate--they are what they are, take them or leave them. Personally, I won't respect writers who play the shock game, but I'm not arguing that authors shouldn't be ALLOWED to be as exploitative as they desire! And puh-lease--equating a rating system with de facto "dumbing down" literature is absurd. Ishiguro's books are more thoroughly adult than anything Atwood could ever IMAGINE to write, and he is a master of subtlety and underplaying the scene for stunning emotional effect.

 

My first point is simply this: Surprises aren't cool. People should be able to know what they are getting into before they get into it. I would be very unhappy if my books were packaged in a way that concealed their content and their intended audience. Everyone should know what they are in for.

 

My second point is this: Being edgy for the sake of edginess is cheap and is the very opposite of brave. Yes, there are many topics to be explored in both fiction and nonfiction. (For a TRULY troubling book, try the recently published nonfiction memoir of a nephew who was in the household of a serial killer while he was kidnapping and killing boys roughly the same age. The small part I've read so far was incredibly chilling and, yes, edgy--but absolutely not CHEAP.) For the past 70 years or so in the art world, just being shocking has been treated as if it has an inherent artistic value. Well, it doesn't. There has to be more to it than that. A toilet on the wall isn't art. A crucifix suspended in urine isn't art. And neither is a rather bad description of sex just because it's some type of taboo sex. Taboo-breaking itself isn't enough to make it art. Plenty of p*rn and certainly fetish stuff breaks "taboos." When someone does it and calls it art doesn't make it so. This isn't a call to action but is, instead, an observation and a frustration. A century ago, we had Kate Chopin's amazing book The Awakening, which was largely suppressed for its controversial themes but was in every way an amazing book. Today, we've swung over to making a hack like Atwood an icon because she writes about "issues."

 

There has to be a middle ground, where no subject is forbidden but a crappy book doesn't become "literary" just because it's about something controversial enough or attacks a politically expedient group of people, and where a play isn't automatically better because it enacts a gang rape (the play in question, BTW, was a weird fantasy that wasn't even pretending to be about any kind of issue but just threw in the rape for artistic effect) or actors get naked on the stage.

 

And NONE OF THAT has anything to do with whether is anything, explicit or not, exploitative or not, crap or not, should be published at all. For that, you have to talk to the publishers, who really make the decisions about what you will or will not get to read.

[Liz CA]

 

Which, I think is fine. Again, there are books that I have zero plans of reading because I don't like certain mental images either. But, I don't think they should be illegal. I don't think all of the authors are merely trying to be salacious. I don't think the authors or readers of such books are depraved (except maybe Chuck Palahniuk ;)). If there is necrophilia, then don't recommend it to me, please. But, that's on me, not a judgment on everyone else. I think we are on the same page here, which is different than what was being said by others.

 

 

I think we agree on this. I just read your post about "knowing your limits."

I think I know mine. It doesn't mean, of course, that I deny or are ignorant of these things actually happening but I would rather not have a vivid mental picture of it. I will, however, gladly pour my resources into helping individuals with traumatic experiences to a place of healing.

[misty.warden]

 

Actually, publishing companies ALREADY do it. Most genre fiction must fit within certain requirements for a given line, including expectations for violence, language, and explicitness. Many authors are asked to change one or several of these things regularly, in various directions. This is true for non-genre lines that are trying to maintain a certain identity as well. Just because you, as a consumer, are ignorant of this doesn't mean that it doesn't happen All. The. Time.

 

They may be asked by a publisher to change things for these reasons, however that does not equate to a rating or warning label displayed on a book or a standard that authors would have to meet to get a certain rating. A label that says only specific categories of acts "This book contains graphic sex, violence, kids disobeying their parents, and smoking." leaves out the entire context of those acts and undermines what an author might be trying to do by including it. How many times have books gotten banned after someone hears that there is something objectionable without knowing the context (Huck Finn, anyone??) and without bothering to figure it out? Slapping a warning label on it will only help the ignorant feel justified, which IMO is too high a price.

 

Publishers could voluntarily use a rating system just like the video game industry does. Nothing keeps you from taking your kid into any movie you want him to see--and nothing should keep your kid from reading any book you want him or her to. Do you really think that Shades of Grey is on middle school bookshelves right now? Of course it isn't. And it's not because of its literary value or lack thereof, either--there's TONS of twaddle on school bookshelves, and that's fine, too. Twaddle can be fun. I have nothing against twaddle, either. Haven't done a survey of middle school shelves, or figured out what you mean here.

 

Look, I write books for a living, and most of them have very explicit content. I'm not arguing that such books shouldn't be written. I'm not saying explicit books are inherently cheap, either. Jennifer Weiner writes frank erotica, and however morally objectionable some find her writing, it isn't CHEAP, and she, too, is ten times the writer Atwood would ever be. More subjective "better writer than x" going on here, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. Some people don't want to read about sex of any sort, whether or not it's "cheap" and that's what OP seemed to be saying unless I completely misunderstood the "why is it even allowed?" bit. There are plenty of absurdly fluffy explicit writers who write silly humor who aren't cheap, either, because they aren't using shock to manipulate--they are what they are, take them or leave them. Personally, I won't respect writers who play the shock game, but I'm not arguing that authors shouldn't be ALLOWED to be as exploitative as they desire! Except the don't-be-cheap-someone-is-10x-better-writer part a few sentences ago? And puh-lease--equating a rating system with de facto "dumbing down" literature is absurd. Ishiguro's books are more thoroughly adult than anything Atwood could ever IMAGINE to write, and he is a master of subtlety and underplaying the scene for stunning emotional effect.

 

My first point is simply this: Surprises aren't cool. People should be able to know what they are getting into before they get into it. I would be very unhappy if my books were packaged in a way that concealed their content and their intended audience. Everyone should know what they are in for. Problem here is the two groups, one wanting warnings of content without regard to context, the other wanting a rating based on whether or not the context justifies the content

 

My second point is this: Being edgy for the sake of edginess is cheap and is the very opposite of brave. Yes, there are many topics to be explored in both fiction and nonfiction. (For a TRULY troubling book, try the recently published nonfiction memoir of a nephew who was in the household of a serial killer while he was kidnapping and killing boys roughly the same age. The small part I've read so far was incredibly chilling and, yes, edgy--but absolutely not CHEAP.) For the past 70 years or so in the art world, just being shocking has been treated as if it has an inherent artistic value. Well, it doesn't. There has to be more to it than that. A toilet on the wall isn't art. A crucifix suspended in urine isn't art. Oh how my modern art history friends would disagree, but that's another issue entirely. And neither is a rather bad description of sex just because it's some type of taboo sex. Taboo-breaking itself isn't enough to make it art. Plenty of p*rn and certainly fetish stuff breaks "taboos." When someone does it and calls it art doesn't make it so. No argument with this part, however it's not the issue. OP asked why it was allowed at all, people responded "it can be artistic/used to illustrate/call to action" not that it always is, but that it can be. Ratings would lump both together when they are not the same or attempt to justify it ex. "this isn't p*rn because the protagonist doesn't say "OH, my!" seven times in a row/it makes the reader angry with the fictitious world that allowed it to happen." Not everyone could be made to agree what was explicit and what was not unless it became a checklist where 3 seconds of nipple is ok but 4 is not. This isn't a call to action but is, instead, an observation and a frustration. A century ago, we had Kate Chopin's amazing book The Awakening, which was largely suppressed for its controversial themes but was in every way an amazing book. Today, we've swung over to making a hack like Atwood an icon because she writes about "issues."

 

There has to be a middle ground, where no subject is forbidden but a crappy book doesn't become "literary" just because it's about something controversial enough or attacks a politically expedient group of people, THIS I'm glad I've found our common ground! and where a play isn't automatically better because it enacts a gang rape (the play in question, BTW, was a weird fantasy that wasn't even pretending to be about any kind of issue but just threw in the rape for artistic effect) or actors get naked on the stage.

 

And NONE OF THAT has anything to do with whether is anything, explicit or not, exploitative or not, crap or not, should be published at all. For that, you have to talk to the publishers, who really make the decisions about what you will or will not get to read.

 

[Reya]

WHAT?! Have you even actually read Margaret Atwood? You're suggesting that literary gems like The Penelopiad are nothing more than absurd stunts? I like Terry Pratchett, but it's meant to be mind-candy; his work never really touches on deep or controversial themes. And Stephen King? What the heck? You're saying there aren't sexual themes involving children in his work? Uhhh...have you read It or The Dead Zone? It seems to be his goal to make you think people are constantly walking around thinking of some random perverted idea. This is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on this forum and that's saying something.

 

To the topic in general, there are people who have complained on this forum about SWB's high school history book containing a reference to "plowing a damp field." I imagine that those same people are not going to want their high school aged kids to read Gilgamesh or The Miller's Tale when it comes time. My kids have read both of those (along with the damp field reference). On the other hand, I know my limits. You couldn't pay me enough to read a Chuck Palahniuk book because I am aware of what they contain. And that's the moral of this thread-know your limits and know what you're reading.

 

 

I've read The Handmaid's Tale. It was terrible in every way. I've had no desire to read more, and that was supposedly "her best, ever." Well, if that's the best she can do, she's a pet progressive shock jock, all message and no meat. I still keep running into her publicity stunts in newspaper articles, and she had done nothing to reverse that opinion.

 

Pratchett is a favorite among *authors* for a reason. He is a writer's writer. At his best, he does things with theme, plot, and characters that even incredibly talented authors whom I admire greatly are boggled by. He makes his writing look easy in the same way that the Norwegian kicker whose youtube video has been making the rounds makes his stunts appear trivial--it's all entertaining and pretty until you realize how insanely complicated it is. His work, at its best, is devastatingly simple on the surface and perfectly seamless. He can set eight or ten plates to spinning, and they NEVER DROP. Never falter. I've watched authors work themselves into a froth over what he does. He's very commercial and has that light, accessible tone, and yet the stuff that he is doing behind the scenes is incredibly complicated. He's easily dismissed because he IS, above all, a commercial storyteller, and he's doing something that is, by all rights, light and fluffy on the lovely surface that he presents. He certainly has his ticks, and when he find something that works, he is shameless about reusing it. His plots do generally work the same, as well. But how they work is something that virtually no other author alive can equal--and sadly, even he can't, anymore. He is a master of his craft and a master of language. He has a few Messages, but that's not what makes him so good. (To be fair, one of his message makes him a darling of writers--that stories shape the world--because of writers' egos.) What he came to do in his books in the early 2000s should not have worked. But it did, perfectly.

 

Stephen King is his opposite, in many ways. So many things that he does DON'T work, often spectacularly so. Then, all of the sudden, they do--and they work so well, so tightly, that you're left wondering if he doesn't have some sort of split personality, one a moron, the other a staggering genius. I find most of his books aggravating for this reason because very few are either of only the awful writing or only the compelling kind, so I have only made it through a few. But if the right person had written it, and with exactly two changes to follow literary expectations, Delores Claiborne would have been hailed as a modern literary masterpiece. It dealt with class, domestic violence, rape, and incest--and NONE of these issues were exploitative of the reader in the least. In the King books I've made it through, when he shocks--whether it's killing off a child character or whatever--it STILL isn't the same kind of voyeuristic titillation that you get in some other high profile books. I must say that neither It nor The Dead Zone were one of those I've attempted. :p I have to be in just the right mood to risk it because he is so infuriating when he doesn't work--partly because he's so good when he does.

 

Anyhow, it would be much easier to find your limits if you had some level of warning up front about what a book might contain, just like you do with movies and even MUSIC. I almost picked up Girl With A Dragon Tattoo before I heard about what it was REALLY about--the book jacket gives you noooooothing--and while I still might read it later when I'm in the mood, I was pretty ticked off at having had no real warning of what I would have been in for. Even if I had thought the book was great, I still would have been peeved! And I'm okay with violence and explicit content in books. I can't imagine how someone who isn't would have felt.

 

I have a friend who was raped as a child. She doesn't mind and often likes sexually explicit materials in graphic novels and not often in books. As a graphic novelist herself, she hears both sides of the debate about whether certain kinds and levels of sexuality are appropriate. While she herself draws some honest-to-goodness pornography--and she used to make a good chunk of her living that way, before her original work sold as well as it does now--she is still firmly on the sides of people who feel that they should be able to choose NOT to see things they don't want to, that there should, in fact, be warnings of the explicitness of content. She understands that explicit content is THERE to cause a reaction, and the reaction that it causes is not entirely voluntary and that, as a result, it can very much feel like a physical violation to have a reaction sprung upon you that you did not want and were not seeking. To her, AS A RAPE VICTIM, there the difference between being physically groped in an unwanted manner and having an unwanted reaction to an unwanted reading or image is only that of degree, not of kind.

 

In all honesty, most of the women on this board would probably be unhappy with my 9-year-old son's current Chinese history course, because when I say it is college-level, I mean college-level. He learned of every kind of atrocity, from child-murder on up, as well as the role of eunuchs in the court, the selection of women for the imperial harem, and the whole bit. Rape, murder, incest, adultery--yup, yup, yup, he did learn about all those things. But the context was controlled. Just because I was okay with that and he was mature enough for it doesn't mean that I'd want him to, say, see a movie that depicted the murders of infant princes or to read a first-hand account of a gruesome execution. And if I didn't want to see that kind of violence, myself, I should have that choice, too.

 

It's not about limiting what people do, at least for me. It's about empowering consumers to know ahead of time what they are getting into. (The aesthetics argument is a separate issue.)

[thebacabunch]

:lurk5:

[Reya]

Misty, I can't quote you because you quoted me and I can't figure out how to make the multiquote thing work....

 

You said, ""This book contains graphic sex, violence, kids disobeying their parents, and smoking." leaves out the entire context of those acts and undermines what an author might be trying to do by including it. "

 

....And so what? Movies do it now. (Minus the "kids disobeying their parents" bit.) If YOU don't want to read graphic sex in ANY context, you should have the ability to avoid it. I don't care if it is art or if it isn't. Making it art doesn't make a person who is unwillingly subjected to it feel any less violated.

 

Your argument is based on, "What if it's art?" Mine is--"I don't care! Let people KNOW what they are going to be experiencing." In the same way, you can't justify a rape by saying that the sex was good. People should choose. When they are tricked, it is a violation.

 

You said, "Haven't done a survey of middle school shelves, or figured out what you mean here. "

 

Explicit works are largely excluded from middle school libraries on the basis of the explicit content without regard to whether it may or may not be "art." (There was an attempt to challenge this about 10 years ago. That failed, as parents made it clear that explicit toddler-rape wasn't appropriate for 6th graders no matter how "ghetto literary" the author was.) It doesn't matter how "artistic" it is or it isn't--unguided 12-year-olds should not be wandering into the middle of certain books. With their parents' permission and guidance Sure! No problem. I read all KINDS of adult books in middle school. But that wasn't coming from a library meant for me to have free roam at that age but from bookshops and the adult section.

 

To argue that something's supposed artistic value allows for explicitness that a book with no artistic aspirations wouldn't be allowed is a very, very dangerous game. As far as your attempt at making Huck Finn too objectionable--it isn't. I don't know why people gravitate toward trying to say that some sort of rating system might exclude that single book, but it wouldn't. I know it's made it onto a number of "banned lists" because of the "n-word" and the belief by some that it is very racist (and THAT'S an ongoing debate, for sure!), but it still isn't a book that's got much to object to if you're counting instances of violence, sex, etc.--which is what a rating system counts. Its contents fit just fine within a middle grades reading list, quite firmly in the middle. It is in no way an example of something that is truly outre but still "real art."

 

You wrote, "More subjective "better writer than x" going on here, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. Some people don't want to read about sex of any sort, whether or not it's "cheap" and that's what OP seemed to be saying unless I completely misunderstood the "why is it even allowed?" bit."

 

I wasn't ever arguing that it shouldn't be allowed. EVER. I was arguing against the "It should be allowed because it's AAAAAAAAART!" argument, which I loathe. I was first taking a stab at current literary and artistic culture, which so often asserts that controversy is what MAKES thing art, an absurd argument. And I was saying that it was utterly irrelevant, one way or another.

 

Books with controversial or even vile content should be allowed because it is free speech. And at the same time, consumers should be free to choose whether they wanted to engage that kind of speech or not.

 

Free speech in a park is protected. Profanity and obscenity in the same park can be forbidden because it subjects others unwillingly to what the "speaker" is doing. With books, you have a choice whether to open the book and read it or not, but people can't exercise their choice reliably without having some idea of what is inside.

 

You said, "Except the don't-be-cheap-someone-is-10x-better-writer part a few sentences ago?"

 

Whether or not I think something is crap has nothing to do with whether I think it should be banned. Apparently, that's your sticking point--that if we ban all this "trash," we'll throw out some gems, too.

 

No, no, no, and NO. All works should have some indication of the level of explicit content inside for the consumer to make her own choice. And no works should be forbidden. If she is looking for hot stuff, then she can find it more easily. If she's wanting to avoid it, then she can.

 

You said, "Problem here is the two groups, one wanting warnings of content without regard to context, the other wanting a rating based on whether or not the context justifies the content."

 

That is, again, "It's okay if it's art!" It's not. It's not a WARNING label. It is INFORMATIONAL. Again, if someone feels violated and it was an "artistic" book, you would argue that their feelings are invalid. It's rape if you don't want it. PERIOD. Doesn't matter if he's Casanova.

 

There is no such thing as a justifying context. It doesn't matter how wonderful The Piano was--it shouldn't have a PG rating because it's artistic, much less no rating at all! An R for The Piano and an R for Scream 2 both TELL me something. If I choose to avoid one of the other because of why they got the R, I'm not artistically stunted or wrong. It's a choice I can make for myself.

 

You said, "No argument with this part, however it's not the issue. OP asked why it was allowed at all, people responded "it can be artistic/used to illustrate/call to action" not that it always is, but that it can be. Ratings would lump both together when they are not the same or attempt to justify it ex. "this isn't p*rn because the protagonist doesn't say "OH, my!" seven times in a row/it makes the reader angry with the fictitious world that allowed it to happen." Not everyone could be made to agree what was explicit and what was not unless it became a checklist where 3 seconds of nipple is ok but 4 is not. This isn't a call to action but is, instead, an observation and a frustration."

 

I am NOT for banning ANY books, which is what you're saying--that we should be able to ban the "bad" ones if only it would affect the "good" ones. I don't care if it's great art or not, as far as ratings go. I'm for rating, not as a "warning" but as a guide. In fact, I'd put the ratings on the INSIDE covers, so that casual observers wouldn't see what you were reading, but you could know.

 

The movie rating system as it is overall works, in that it lets people know in a general sense what they are in for. It makes it harder for movies with above-R to make be shown in theaters, but this WOULD NOT apply to books because books are always bought by and read by individuals and not displayed in public venues. Perhaps younger teens couldn't buy M-level novels--but plenty of booksellers and librarians step in NOW to limit access to books that are far more innocuous than that. If there were a standard, that kind of interference would decrease, not increase.

 

And let me assure you that there would be NO lack for explicit books under this kind of rating system. Just check the NYT Bestseller list. These days, there is almost always frank erotica in the top 10. If anything, erotica would sell better because it could escape the stigma of genre and get a classier replacement through ratings!

[Deb in NZ]

 

"Sexual assault" statistics of that sort includes ME, as I had a creep rub his (clothed) erection against me when I was cornered in a room. (I punched him.) That's not rape or anything like it.

 

These were protected, upper-middle class Honors students from an upper class neighborhood who were in no way talking about anything they knew. Similarly, the school that did that one-act play was from the richest high school in the state, with 0% poverty and near-0% middle class and almost no crime. The schools that came from areas where girls might have actually suffered assault would not have so trivialized and exploited it--because that's what it was. It was cheap and gross.

 

It was creepy because the girls so obviously had no idea what they were talking about and chose something controversial because it generally scores well in these competitions. They hadn't written this. They had it picked out for them by a coach. It was absurd and inappropriate.

 

 

 

I wasn't there, but for you to assume that "real" sexual assault happens only to lower & middle class people is very, very, very wrong! The 25% quotes in a pervious post refers to ALL socio-economic levels. Sometimes it is worse in the upper class as the assaults are kept secret to preserve family pride. Just because people aren't aware of the assault, doesn't mean it did not happen. In my composition class at uni I wrote a piece about a similar thing that happened to me. I'm sure many in my class felt as you did as how would a middle class girl from a good area "know" about such things?