I agree with you about "Tampa." The sex scenes were so gratuitous and plentiful that I felt like I was reading a "Fifty Shades of Grey" for female pedophiles. There was just no point to them except salaciousness, and I don't know many women who get off on fantasies about banging young boys, so I'm not sure who her target audience was. I love scandalous books, but this one was just kind of gross and made me feel bad for having read it.

The quote selection for the two books did the review for me. The quotes encapsulate exactly what your critiques are.

Gotta disagree about Lolita though. It is a deeply forgettable book that shallow non-readers cite as one of their favorites to get conservatives worked up.

It is a deeply forgettable book that shallow non-readers cite as one of their favorites to get conservatives worked up.

No, the book you're thinking of is Jude the Obscure. Oh, wait, it's actually Tropic of Cancer. Silly me, of course, you're really describing Lady Chatterly's Lover. Or perhaps it's Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret. Or I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings. Or Ulysses. Or....

Why gendered stereotypes actually help female pedophiles

Historically, sexual abuse by women is vastly underreported because it carries such stigma. According to Dr Lisa Bunting, a researcher for NSPCC (a part of Childline), there is even greater guilt and shame attached to being the victim of a female abuser: “We get a lot of stigma with any type of sex abuse, but this is particularly the case in the participation of women.”

She says victims are more likely to “internalize” the abuse than to report it, not only because they fear that their stories will not be believed, but also because they have difficulty coping with the sheer fact of the abuse—they struggle to believe that a woman would be capable of such a crime.

http://equal-writes.org/2009/11/10/why-g…

/ss/ is better in comics.

There's an ad for loveagain.com to date older women at the bottom of this article. Ha! Nice placement! Paul Verhoeven is going to turn this into a movie.

@4--One of the stupider articles you have cut-and-pasted. The reason it is so under-reported is that it is not perceived as victimization by the "victims". But since you consider all non-missionary, non-marital sex to be evil, you continue to spout nonsense. How's your race for governor of Virginia coming?

Fondlier

#8

Ballard "Pimp"

Equal Writes is a writing project that hopes to start a dialogue about feminism, gender, sexuality, and social justice issues at Princeton University and beyond.

We aim to give a voice to young feminist writers of all genders with a diverse range of perspectives on some of the most important issues students face here, and in the world at large. We believe in equal rights and opportunities for women.

We believe in powerful, passionate women. We believe that men can be excellent feminists too. And we believe that "feminism" is not a dirty word.

This blog is pretty interesting.

To address some part of #8's point, at least for women and party loyalty:

On [Rich, White] Republican Women: Not A Paradox

You CAN, in fact, be female (more accurate on the sex-gender distinction) and a Republican. I agree: They do exist.

You can even be a “woman” and Republican. I am a feminist that believes that there is more than one concept of “womanhood” (some don’t). Not just two types as Fortney says—many. I believe there as many concepts of womanhood as there are women in the world. And some of these concepts of womanhood and feminism are indeed at odds with each other. (#feministpornwars)

http://equal-writes.org/2013/01/16/on-ri…

Sounds like it's another bunch of those pesky "real life" women that SLOG, Ballard Pimp, Democrats and Leftists don't really like dealing with...the same way they would never marry or have in their home for dinner any ethnicity other than their own.

@11: We're onto you, slightly braindamaged Salon senior editor Camille Paglia.

@2

First of all, Paul's contention was that Lolita is beautifully written. If you doubt that, you probably haven't read it, or you simply don't know what beautiful writing is, or you shouldn't be allowed near books. I'll cheerfully provide you a dozen or so paragraphs that support Paul's point beyond all contention. Would you like me to fucking do that?

One of the things I've noticed about people who don't get Lolita is that they never simply say, "I don't get Lolita". Or, "It's beautifully written, but I do not understand why it's necessary." Or, "I understand that the novel purports to humanize a deviant, but outside a redemptive enterprise, is that a worthwhile artistic objective?" Such objections would be too thoughtful. So people who don't get Lolita must, in every single instance, attribute an invidious motive to people who love the novel. Because that's what you do when you can't support your critical judgments, or even explain them.

While a curt "fuck you" is a more than adequate answer to such lazy impertinence, I am a very giving person. As you can see. Also, fuck you.

#6, the protaganist in Tampa actually does target pre-pubescent boys and rejects most of the boys in her class because they have reached puberty and are therefore totally undesirable to her. She's kind of a borderline pedophile. I can't remember if they mention her actually having had sex with 13-year-olds, but Jack's barely 14.

Attraction to teenagers is most certainly not pedophilia. Having sex with a 14 or 15 year old is criminal, but it is probably an indication that you are not a pedophile.

@ 15, I guess if she is attracted to 14 or 15 year olds that look younger rather than older, she might be a little bit pedophile. Seems a little bit unrealistic though. Most real people who target young teens are not pedophiles.