I ask with trepidation ... what, exactly, is the nature of the objection to the story? Because I admit, I don't understand. But I'm willing to be educated....
To be clear on why I'm not sure I understand - I skimmed the story (just skimmed) and didn't see any references to genocide or to Cambodian history at all. The story seemed to be more about the climate, the food, the scenery, as a vacation spot. Is that the objection? That there were no references to the history? I mean, the story didn't seem to use the genocide as a backdrop; it wasn't mentioned at all. Unless I missed it.
Apparently, there is a two-paragraph description of the horrors of genocide as a lead-in to comfort sex. A bunch of other commenters in hesychasm's post also pointed the generally exotifying and shallow depiction of Cambodians.
Okay, the genocide I get ... the rest of it, well, didn't seem very different from what Cambodia posts on its official tourism website. But the genocide, yes, quite.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Which leads right into the sex.
no subject
no subject
no subject