Glad that what were previously known as zoomers are making a come-back. I really love them.

Evidently olives is a metaphor, but it’s a risibly inaccurate one. As such, it also reads as disrespectful and faintly mocking.

It is not the reference to puberty per se that I object to (though in relation to a female child, this almost invariably does imply sexualisation I’m afraid), but specifically in the sexualising context of the repeated and unnecessary references to the sexual characteristics of the child’s body.

Also, the thing is, that being female does not actually entitle one to fecundity. Cassie’s motherhood was not a foregone conclusion solely by virtue of her gender, thus it was only a potential loss, and not an actual one. Presumably, and no less ridiculously, there are potential lost earnings to consider also…

Also, if I lost a child, or wanted to depcit the loss of a child, I really wouldn’t choose to represent that loss by referring to breasts. Why would someone do that when there are so many far more apt allusions that could be made? Hmm? Nothing to do with the double cultural meaning I presume…

I don’t see how making a reference to the onset of puberty necessarily means sexualization, however… at least not in an objectifying way. Surely the great tragedy of a child’s death is the stolen adulthood which it entails. What’s wrong with drawing attention to this aspect, especially in a story which is about parenthood/motherhood? The allusion to breasts, a feminine form, fertility - its about both Cassie and Estelle’s lost motherhood. I think its an interesting alternative to the Peter Pann-ing that we normally read about.

This story makes me want to puke. The sexualisation is disgusting, frankly. Pathetic, cheap, and sickening. And how come the woman doesn’t cut her feet on the jagged shards? This story sucks on so many levels. It’s pathetic.