The Sword and Laser discussion

...yeah. Get your luggage, there is SO much to unpack here.

This is a powerful, impactful story. It grew from a fairly tedious set of data dumps through a slow burn of several transformations, and concluded with the force of a baseball bat to the head.

I actually finished two days ago and needed time to process. Full spoilers within. Altho I'll probably break this up into several posts.

(view spoiler)[The torture sequence. Painful, brutal, and straight out of history. Humans have been doing this and worse to other humans since we came down out of the trees. Lord knows what Tiptree saw and heard as an intelligence agent.

The kiddy porn. It just gets worse and worse. First we find out that the kids come from that background, then that Zannez is still making them do it - but it's all expected by Gridworld standards. He can't get them paid without it. It sounds like a lurid conspiracy theory of Hollywood - but since Tiptree was in a position to know, what does that tell us about the seamier side of the entertainment industry? And piling revulsion onto revulsion and then into the real world, one of the actresses was just shy of her 14th birthday. Like the girl Roman Polanski raped, to which Hollywood turned a deaf ear.

As for Zannez, he seems the kind of compromised ally an intelligence agent would encounter. Someone who comes through for your mission and is an asset even tho you would prefer never to associate with such a person.

It's a lurid dinner party where everything goes wrong. One can imagine Tiptree at a social occasion while visions of her professional life intrude.

As for the Damieii, they are idealized as noble savages at the start. It's a stereotype that holds until the very end, when the Damieii show that they very much want to join galactic society, sell the nectar only they can provide and buy goods currently unavailable to them. So much for that "unchanging noble savage" concept. Actually, we're seeing that right now with Avatar.

Pernicious beauty, of the planet that was destroyed. I'm not sure what to make of this. A beauty that spreads, then destroys those it impresses. A biblical allegory? Or cultural perhaps? I know visiting some historical cities, most especially Rome, I just want to give up whatever I'm doing to spend months, perhaps years, living there and immersing myself in its majesty. I think this analogy of pernicious beauty would fit many situations, now that Tiptree brings it up. What a concept.

And...I think I'll stop there. So much to unpack, my brain needs another day to recover before more. (hide spoiler)]

I rather think you’re giving Tiptree more credit than she deserves. After doing a deep dive into her background, reading between the lines makes me think she was fundamentally screwed up. In a much deeper way than being bisexual in a society that wasn’t tolerant of that. For instance, I suspect the kiddie porn stuff wasn’t something she witnessed but rather something she liked.

I also think her short-lived CIA career is blown out of proportion. As an expert in aerial reconnaissance, she wouldn’t have directly dealt with any intelligence that would’ve related to anything in this book, although her husband almost certainly would have. Would he have shared that info with his wife? Highly unlikely.

I say it’s highly unlikely because my father-in-law was a legit CIA spook. He was a field agent who did dangerous stuff and dealt with foreign operatives all the time. He was recruited by the intelligence service during the Korean War and was there in the early years of the company when Sheldon and her husband were active. The compartmentalization of information they practiced was comprehensive and extreme. (Even though he went overt at his retirement 30 years ago, my mother-in-law to this day refuses to break with their cover story.)

They were stationed primarily in The Hague and Rome, with the cover that they worked for the State Department. I don’t envy other people’s lives very often, but my wife grew up going to high school in Rome, and they would learn about places like the Colosseum in the morning and then in the afternoon they’d go visit it. I mean, c’mon.

Being in on the ground floor of the baby agency and having a 40-year career there meant my f-i-l met lots of muckety-mucks and actual important people; we have a photo of him being clandestinely awarded a commendation by Bobby Kennedy. It’s too bad he passed away, as he likely would’ve known Alice Sheldon, if she were someone worth knowing. He *definitely* would’ve known Sheldon’s husband, Huntington Sheldon. I should dig those pictures out of storage to see if that’s H. Sheldon standing there, as well.



Edit: I looked at the photos and I don’t think HS is there. A couple of guys resemble him, but the pics were taken in Holland, so unlikely.

"So...um" indeed. I've just finished the book and, as I try to process it, I find myself getting more annoyed the more I think about it. I am a loss to understand why anyone would rate this as anything more than 3 stars; it is largely badly written, has huge logical flaws and is highly offensive. If I were to award this 3 stars, it would be because I assume I have missed something important, but I am fairly certain this is not the case. When I finally write a review, I suspect it will be 1 star.

I hesitate to use spoiler tags here, since I believe this should be written on the cover as a warning, however: (view spoiler)[one of the main "heroes" is an unashamed pedophile/child pornographer who, by the end of the book, is rewarded to the point of embarrassment for his actions and suffers no punishment in any shape or form; another of the characters (admittedly another child - a weirdly adult one) rewards themselves with one of the pedophile's 13 year old child actors and is particularly pleased because she has been "trained". (hide spoiler)]

WTF?

Steve wrote: ""So...um" indeed. I've just finished the book and, as I try to process it, I find myself getting more annoyed the more I think about it. I am a loss to understand why anyone would rate this as anyt..."

Yeah, it’s baffling to me that this ever saw the light of day. Firstly, the writing bad, from the clunky plotting to the ersatz screwball comedy dialogue (“Goodo!”) to the inconsistent deus ex machina time bubbles. Secondly, it’s just repulsive.

I could understand if parallels were drawn between (view spoiler)[the kiddie porn and the torture of the aliens, but the creep is celebrated as a hero. (hide spoiler)] How did Sheldon defend this to the editor? How did the editor defend this to the publisher? How did no one push back on any of this when it was released? Mind-boggling.

I volunteer at an abuse shelter, recording survivor stories, and everything in this book plus the stuff I read about Sheldon leads me to believe she might have been sexually abused as a child. Her first public notice was for winning an award for a nude self-portrait she painted when she was 17. That is not the kind of thing one expects from a girl in 1932. The stuff in this book and other hints throughout her life, like the painting, certainly fit the pattern of abuse.

(read spoiler above)

OH HELL NO. And I'd like to know why T&V even thought this should be one of the dozen books we read this year.

Rick wrote: "(read spoiler above)

OH HELL NO. And I'd like to know why T&V even thought this should be one of the dozen books we read this year."

I think I can speculate on some of this answer, at least: Tiptree Jr is a famous SF name, to the point a major award was named after them (it has since been renamed), and Tom likes to expose us to the classics. This particular one was more widely available to the international audience than the pick Tom preferred (we talked about this on Discord when it was picked).

Rick wrote: "(read spoiler above)

OH HELL NO. And I'd like to know why T&V even thought this should be one of the dozen books we read this year."

There’s no way to know just from the blurbs and reading the sample. On the surface it seems like a sci-fi Agatha Christie story. It really feels like a publisher bait-and-switch.

Trike wrote: " There’s no way to know just from the blurbs and r..."

There are reviews out there though.

Trike wrote: "I could understand if parallels were drawn between (view spoiler) "

When the two were literally occurring side-by-side, I was convinced that this was going to be the way things were going. I was waiting for it, even, since this was the only reason I could figure that the porn storyline was in there in the first place. And it keeps recurring. Even amidst action sequences there's some naked kid lying unconscious or whatever. I can't figure out why the author figures it is so central to the story, but not really worthy of any kind of commentary. It's pretty alarming.

TBH I thought the implication was that a culture that so easily accepted kiddy porn was one in which the horrors visited on the Demaii could occur. The entire culture was desensitized.

It's easy to mistake authorial intent. For instance, the parents in Podkayne of Mars are light on the reins with their children. Readers took this as a good thing. Heinlein stated that his intent was to show the bad things kids can get into when left to their own devices.

John (Taloni) wrote: "TBH I thought the implication was that a culture that so easily accepted kiddy porn was one in which the horrors visited on the Demaii could occur."

Right, except that one seems mostly acceptable and the other is noted as criminal and horrifying. I could see the point being that even advanced societies have horrible blind-spots, maybe. But you're right, unless Tiptree left some commentary about it, I don't know that we'll guess what she meant by it.

From my POV Tiptree is using the book as an expose on our own culture. She is pointing out what happens right under our noses and saying "For the love of God, LOOK!"

We're having harsh reactions in thread because we're interacting with challenging material. I'd hate for people to skip the book because it brings up strong emotions. I think that's the point.

John (Taloni) wrote: "From my POV Tiptree is using the book as an expose on our own culture. She is pointing out what happens right under our noses and saying "For the love of God, LOOK!"

We're having harsh reactions i..."

But the thing is, in "normal" society this doesn't happen. Sure, this happens in the darker corners of society, but I am not aware of a mainstream culture which would be merely a bit uncomfortable about being the same room as someone shooting a child porn movie.

This isn't really holding a mirror up to society, it is more saying "imagine if society was like this". So, it's horrific, but there doesn't seem to be much of a conclusion that the reader can draw from this. At no point does the author seem to be saying "look at how bad this is".

As you suggest, one can be generous and assume that there is some missing context that was more apparent at the time it was published, however I still would have expected there to be a clearer indication in the story that this was A Bad Thing.

John (Taloni) wrote: "From my POV Tiptree is using the book as an expose on our own culture. She is pointing out what happens right under our noses and saying "For the love of God, LOOK!"
"

Except she is EXPLICITLY NOT doing that.

The kiddie porn is normalized and accepted. The pornographer is heralded as a hero. There is absolutely no way to spin any of that into either condemnation or even mild social commentary. She is saying, unequivocally, that this behavior is not only acceptable, it is *good*.

I wonder if she was trying to mimic certain parts of Huxlely's "Brave New World" because there's a scene where it's heavily implied that young children where being de-sensenstized to sex with one another.

I do not think there is any positive portrayals here.

Having read a few of Tiptree's shorts I think it is clear that the hypocrisy is the point. The representatives of the society spend a lot of time celebrating the fact that they ended the exploration of the natives at great cost to themselves while using child labour (sex workers and soldiers) to meet their own needs. This appears to be a direct critique of western society congratulating itself over how it helps others while continuing horrifying cruelty at home.

(view spoiler)[ Poe is much a victim as the four child sex workers. I am not sure Zimmenez is a pedophile as the four "actors" only interact with each other. He is, however, profiting from it... Cory was a child soldier and presages Ender. The doctor Brom is the central protagonist is the second half and man is he a creep as well.

The sexuality seems straight out of late Heinlen where all pretty young women are just waiting to have sex with old white authors.... (hide spoiler)]

Iain wrote: "Cory was a child soldier and presages Ender"

Note: this book came out *after* Ender’s Game. Short story was 1977, novel was January 1985. This novel was February 1985.

I disagree with your other points, but I’m not going to rehash that. The fact both Card and Sheldon are problematic is not lost on me. Card is a genuine Evil Asshole, and there’s no way to claim otherwise, while Sheldon is someone I merely suspect to be less-than-angelic.

I don’t think the evidence fits putting a positive spin on it.

Trike wrote: "Iain wrote: "Cory was a child soldier and presages Ender"

Note: this book came out *after* Ender’s Game. Short story was 1977, novel was January 1985. This novel was February 1985.

I disagree wit..."

I have been listening to Ten Steps to Nanette which deals with a lot of toxic shit and the quality of it may have influenced me to look for any positive spin.

Clearly there was something in the water in the mid eighties left over from all the toxicity sloshing around.

After reading this I have no idea why anyone would have named the Otherwise Award after Tiptoe in the first place. Other than the use of a pseudonym I do not see much gender fluidity or gender interrogation in her stories. Feminist attitudes yes, not so much exploration.

IN conclusion keep the short stories.. It would have been better if this book had never been published.

As for Card.. Barf...

Iain wrote: "I think it is clear that the hypocrisy is the point. ... This appears to be a direct critique of western society congratulating itself over how it helps others while continuing horrifying cruelty at home."

Certainly, crappy hypocrisy is basically the feeling that pervades the whole thing, and the resounding feeling I was left with at the end. I think that you're right that this was something the author intended to show.

But this point could have been made entirely with the treatment of Damiem's natives (view spoiler)[ who are treated as pets even by the humans who should know better, and there's such surprise by Kip at the end when they're revealed to actually want things like basic sanitation. (hide spoiler)] But the naked children are just everywhere and I can't make it fit in with any kind of point.

Steve wrote: "But the thing is, in "normal" society this doesn't happen. Sure, this happens in the darker corners of society, but I am not aware of a mainstream culture..."
Let's not forget that 1978 saw the release of the critically acclaimed "Pretty Baby" with a nude 12-year old Brooke Shields and shortly after came "Blue Lagoon." Not to mention the Roman Polanski case came to a head in the late 70s as well and people still defend him.

John (Taloni) wrote: "We're having harsh reactions in thread because we're interacting with challenging material. I'd hate for people to skip the book because it brings up strong emotions. I think that's the point."

Thank you, John.

I would like to think, after 14 years of hosting this show and selecting book picks, that we'd have a little more credibility banked. Tom and I make an effort to select books that will broaden our (and hopefully, your) understanding of SFF in general. That includes the historical context in which a lot of these novels have been written.

HOWEVER, we're not infallible. Given that S&L is not our full-time jobs, it's impossible for us to go out and heavily research every novel we select, including the background of the author. We were aware (as noted in the kick-off episode) of the complicated history of Alice Sheldon, but in none of my reading did anything come up with regards to some of the allegations levelled in this thread.

Not all books are going to be winners for everyone. You are allowed and ENCOURAGED to Lem a book if it's not your speed -- we have a long history of saying that. Have strong opinions about them! But the current discourse in this thread and the insinuations therein are pretty hurtful to us.

Veronica wrote: "John (Taloni) wrote: "We're having harsh reactions in thread because we're interacting with challenging material. I'd hate for people to skip the book because it brings up strong emotions. I think ..."

I don't believe the goal of this thread was to cast aspersions at you and Tom, and, speaking personally, heartfelt apologies if any of comments came across in that manner. I don't think there is an expectation that you should pre-screen books. One of the reasons I like S&L is that it opens me up to books I wouldn't ordinarily read, and naturally this means that, as you say, sometimes books are not to my taste.

In this particular case, the aspect of the book discussed above sideswiped me, to the point where I was unable to view the rest of the book objectively. As you say, Lemming the book would have been a good option, however I persevered in the hope that maybe I was misinterpreting things and all would become clear. Unfortunately, for me at least, this wasn't the case.

Thanks for your "continuing mission" to broaden our horizons; any failures along the way are our own.

Jebus! I reckon some of us need to step back and take a breath. Think please.
Things are not always the same. Just because something is evil does not mean it was not normal in many places and times. (Even now.) Should one not talk about it? How Victorian.
Does anybody remember the quite horrible shit that happened in HBO's very popular Rome series?
As for the writer's prosaic skills, I read the book soon after it was published. It had a strong impact on me ... even to this day.

Steve wrote: "I don't believe the goal of this thread was to cast aspersions at you and Tom"

Well, *I* wasn’t. As I said above (#7), even a normal perusal of the book shows no indication of the questionable material. I do not expect either Tom or Veronica to spoil books for themselves just to vet them for anything potentially problematic. That’s unreasonable, and rather takes the fun out of reading.

Given that this book is an anomaly in this regard, I think that speaks to the overall good sense of writers, publishers, and book-pickers.


Clyde wrote: "Jebus! I reckon some of us need to step back and take a breath. Think please.
Things are not always the same. Just because something is evil does not mean it was not normal in many places and times. (Even now.) Should one not talk about it? How Victorian."

There’s discussing an uncomfortable or disgusting subject and then there’s celebrating it. I believe that this book has crossed the line into holding up deviant behavior as something praiseworthy. I’m having a hard time thinking of any society that has sexualized children as depicted here.

Treated them as disposable, as fodder for factories or wars, sure, but this? Even with all the history I’ve read, this is a pretty universal taboo.

Clyde wrote: "As for the writer's prosaic skills, I read the book soon after it was published. It had a strong impact on me ... even to this day. "

As someone who didn't come away from the book with much of a message, I wouldn't mind hearing about the impact it had on you.

Really, if anyone who had more positive takeaways wants to start a new thread, I'd be interested in hearing what you've got to say.

Well hey! Glad to see this thread cooled down. Yes, I saw Veronica's post a few days back but wanted to let others talk first.

We have a great corner of the internet here, with SFnal discussion that can get heated but not personal. It is so rare to have anywhere on the internet where discussion doesn't devolve into armed camps lobbing bombs at each other, and those places are worth defending.

On account of some tough subject matter things got more heated than usual. No one knew in advance what this book would address, that's the point of book club - new material.

I try to give back to Veronica and Tom for a great forum by encouraging discussion of the monthly book, starting posts, providing the occasional news item and even some filk as inspiration hits. I know others act similarly. I see a lot of great discussion on a regular basis some of which can even make its way onto the podcast. There's a wide variety of well informed viewpoints here.

So let's get back to that. Perhaps in another post, and let this one drop. Sorry Veronica it went a bit far.

Sigh. Fine, since I was the one who directly asked why T&V chose this, I'll reply.

I certainly don't expect them to spend hours and hours researching a book or pre-reading it just in case it has something objectionable and I certainly wasn't implying that they were ok with the kiddie porn.

BUT... I kind of do expect the to read a few reviews if they've not read a book before, especially when the author has had a rather problematic life. And if I load the book page for this novel the *second* review (from 2013) says this:

"...The sweet, kind-hearted, heroic child porn producer, for instance ..."

But yes, if you missed this one, few other reviews mention the issue and it's easy to see how someone doing a little research could miss that it's part of the book, so this isn't really a big deal.

Before I go, though... if asking why a book was selected or criticizing that it was selected is "pretty hurtful" then, with due respect, I think you both are being overly sensitive. We need to be able to criticize the selection of a book as long as we do it respectfully and I don't think anyone here was insinuating that either of you approve of kiddie porn. I certainly wasn't and if you inferred that from my "hell no" post, again, that's being pretty sensitive.

Rick wrote: "Sigh. Fine, since I was the one who directly asked why T&V chose this, I'll reply.

I certainly don't expect them to spend hours and hours researching a book or pre-reading it just in case it has ..."

I think this book maybe might highlight looking up the Trigger/Content Warnings (CW) for a book and including it in the briefing, although I hate to have that price gated if nothing else is important. I hope Tom and Veronica consider it.

I don't think they should have to look up reviews or skip books because it has difficult subject matter. But I think getting over the idea that CWs are spoilers they are there to warn people so surprise kiddie porn doesn't happen. And if you don't want to look at the CW I think a link to them needs to be provided during the announcement so those they might have issues can take care of themselves.

Again some books are going to have difficult subject matter and I agree this author should have been regarded with a certain level of skepticism and warnings probably should have been given if people didn't remember who this author was before starting. But I don't think this book should have been skipped. Particularly since the author is not alive and we wouldn't be giving financially to her by reading the book.

I don't think we should skip books that contains sensitive topics.

It, usually, comes up pretty early if there are triggering contents. People will mention it in the book announcements or a topic will be started. By people who have either read it before or read it early before the month starts.

I don't expect Tom and Veronica to investigate every book that is up for consideration.

Sometimes Tom asks for suggestions a day or two before he makes his pick and he goes off the Discord or Goodreads discussion to make his pick

This months pick was mostly picked, because of the Tiptree books suggested, it was the easiest to get hold of.

The child porn content, which while confronting to think about as it is presented as a normal part of their society, wasn't explicit or presented as titillation.

Tassie Dave wrote: " People will mention it in the book announcements or a topic will be started. ..."

The issue here is that the selection has already been made by then. While I don't think we should avoid sensitive subjects inherently, there are a lot of books that don't include topics that are almost universally upsetting, e.g. kiddie porn, rape, etc.

Do I expect T&V to spend hours researching picks? No. Do I expect a little light due diligence? Well... yes. The issue here, I think, is that aside from the review I mentioned above the kiddie porn references in the book are really NOT mentioned online. So it's easy to see how they were missed.

End of the day, we'll probably always have the odd "WTF? How did this get chosen??" month. Life ain't perfect.

This is not on Tom. Normal due diligence likely wouldn’t have picked this up.

As I’ve mentioned previously, I am a titled Lord, and as a member of the landed gentry whose rule is law in my demesne*, I would dismiss any accusations of wrongdoing leveled at Tom.



* Sure, said domain is one square foot of Scotland, but I rule it absolutely, and my judgements are tough but fair.

The Lord hath spoken, so sayeth the Lord! :P

My feelings re. content warnings are that it is the responsibility of the individual to look them up. It's what you'd have to do for every other book you choose to read, and the pick of the month is announced in advance so people have time to find out if the pick is something they want to read or not. There is never any judgement on anyone for choosing not to read along.

Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth wrote: "My feelings re. content warnings are that it is the responsibility of the individual to look them up. It's what you'd have to do for every other book y..."

Yes. What she said.

Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth wrote: "The Lord hath spoken, so sayeth the Lord! :P

My feelings re. content warnings are that it is the responsibility of the individual to look them up. It's what you'd have to do for every other book y..."

Yet we're not choosing these books ourselves they are part of a book club in which the book and the author are introduced to us. Providing a link to Trigger Warnings for the book of the month in the announcement or the book briefing doesn't seem to be to be a big ask. I'm not saying they need to go over them I'm just saying that I'd like to see them more easily accessed so that people who need them don't have to do extra steps to participate in the club.

Dazerla wrote: "Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth wrote: "The Lord hath spoken, so sayeth the Lord! :P

My feelings re. content warnings are that it is the responsibility of the individual to look them up. It's what you'd h..."

Use story graph. Each book has a content warning and it is a simple matter to check.

e.g. (view spoiler)[
Graphic
Suicide, Terminal illness, Torture
Moderate
Child abuse, Sexual content, Ableism
Minor
Pedophilia
(hide spoiler)]

If this is important to you checking trusted sources is important. What is triggering for one individual is not for another. This means comprehensive lists are hard to put together and can act as spoilers.

For example some members of the group cannot read books where dogs are hurt which I not always reported. If pedophilia/incest is a main theme in a book I am reading it gets thrown across the room. The review of The Porpoise includes the line She is raised in wealthy isolation by an overprotective father. which would read is raised and raped by her father, but gets a pass because it is serious literature...

Having read some of the short stories by Tiptree this book was a shock as it does not treat the subject matter in the same interesting way.

https://www.doesthedogdie.com/ is another good source for finding out about potentially triggering content, albeit less comprehensive for books.

Just to go back to my original point, although trigger warnings are all well and good, the aspect that troubled me in this case was not the topics mentioned, which deserve discussion, but the way they were presented in the story (to be clear: this is not something I would expect T&V to be aware of before suggesting the book).

At no point in the book did I get a sense that Tiptree presented any serious disapproval of the treatment of the human children in the story. At best, it was presented as something that made some people a bit uncomfortable but no attempt was made to stop it. Indeed, the perpetrator appears to be celebrated, and others are quite happy to take advantage of the children's circumstances. There was no sense that this was satire, or presented so as to juxtapose with the treatment of the aliens. If this was the author's intention, they failed badly (in my opinion).

As also previously mentioned, I can only assume that there was some context that would have been readily apparent to readers at the time, but has now slipped into obscurity. The simple fact that child abuse exists, does not seem to warrant the way this story is presented. As it stands, my interpretation is that either this book has aged very badly, or it raises serious questions about the author's personal opinions on these issues.

Again, it is worth noting that although I personally find this book offensive, I consider the purpose of a book club is to present me with new books to read and discuss. It's purpose is not to protect me from books that I don't like. In that sense, although I don't like this book, I am glad that I am now aware of its existence (if only so that I can avoid Tiptree in the future).

Steve wrote: "
As also previously mentioned, I can only assume that there was some context that would have been readily apparent to readers at the time, ..."

Come on. The book was published in *1985*. Child porn was not OK then, just as it is not now.

Come on, Rick, it's clear that Steve wasn't suggesting folk in the 80's were down with the child porn.

I haven't read the book, but from comments here, I gather that whatever comentary might have been intended by the child porn bits was poorly executed, leaving people wondering what it was there for, and being disgusted at how it doesn't seem to be critiqued.

What Steve is saying is that, at the time, it might have been so in line with contemporary discussions that these fed into that section, so that contemprary readers would have filled in the commentary themselves and understood it in that context.

Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth wrote: "What Steve is saying is that, at the time, it might have been so in line with contemporary discussions that these fed into that section, so that contemprary readers would have filled in the commentary themselves and understood it in that context. ..."

No. Unlike some of you, I was alive and an adult in the 80s. None of this was that different from now.

Hm. I'm pushing 60 and distinctly recall the Roman Polanski scandal of 1973, which occurred when I was in my early teens. It would certainly be part of the common knowledge of the day for people my age and those older.

Polanski molested a girl who was just shy of her 14th birthday. That's the conspicuously specific age given to one of the girls in the story, her age defined towards the end of the book.

Roman Polanski ran from the US to Europe, where he continued making movies with no impediment. He received Oscars in 1975, 1981, and 2003.

To my mind the analogy is blatant and obvious. Tiptree is issuing a warning about a society. The society is our own.

John (Taloni) wrote: "Hm. I'm pushing 60 and distinctly recall the Roman Polanski scandal of 1973, which occurred when I was in my early teens. It would certainly be part of the common knowledge of the day for people my..."

And ... John nails it. (As is his wont.)