Raya’s answer to “is this book disturbing in bits?” > Likes and Comments
3 likes · Like
Maybe because Lolita is a child, and Bumbert is an adult and should, you know, control himself as such.
It's what he wants to see. Its the ultimate unreliable narrator tale.
I find it disturbing that some people fail to see that Lolita is in fact a child.
Lolita is described by Humbert, he chooses to see and portray her as self-aware because it excuses his actions; he paints her as the manipulative one, not himself because then he can shift the blame to her; and he sees her unwillingness to participate as a way of punishing him, not the actions of a scared 12 year old. Humbert wants you on his side, he wants understanding from you, he wants you to know it's not his fault. I'm afraid you fell for it.
100% what Wendy said. Humbert Humbert is the narrator of the book, you are getting Lolita filtered through him. In order to abuse children, paedophiles must find ways to justify their behaviour, they must break down the barriers placed in their own head by society by convincing themselves that it is okay, the child wants and is inviting them to carry out their abuse.
Regardless, children cannot consent to sexual contact with adults and adults hold the power over them via their size, sex, status within the family... with power comes great responsibility.
.. and then, as the book goes on, it comes out, that she is a trapped child, who is forced to have sex with a predator over and over and qite very often, who cries a lot during sex and every single night. Who wants love and secutiry and cant have it. Who is everyghing but not dumb ot dull, but she keeps as much to herself, as she can.
NOOOOO! Did I read this right? It does not matter how she behaves. Even if we could believe a single word of that pervert (don't wanna dignify him with the name).
What difference does age make, we lock up children who murder. she had been sexually active long before she met HH, and she was showing him things he was unaware of sexually. she wanted him to dote on her and buy her things, so she played him like any female will. Age is a little irrelevant when you stop to think that in the world today the average age of a girl to marry is 16.
>What difference does age make, we lock up children who murder.
...When? And how do you come to a conclusion that age doesn't matter because... some children end up in jail???
> she had been sexually active long before she met HH, and she was showing him things he was unaware of sexually.
She was active sexually with other children. Not a grown man. It wasn't exploitation, unlike Humbert did.
>she wanted him to dote on her and buy her things, so she played him like any female will.
Ah, here's the good part. You're literally blaming a child for being a child, blaming her for what children usually always do, asking for toys and spoil them. Yet again, the women are evil exploiters, even if she's 12 and some dude in his 40s drove her mom to suicide and took an advantage of her troubled childhood.
Did she trick him into sex?? How did Lolita played him? It was his choice to have sex (rape) her. Because he's a grown man, and a pedophile. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have sex with her in the first place. He thought she seduced him, that she was all that sexy and foxy but in reality any normal, smart person can see right through the pedo mindset.
>Age is a little irrelevant when you stop to think that in the world today the average age of a girl to marry is 16.
How does that make age irrelevant? Ok, by your logic murder is irrelevant, diseases are irrelevant, slavery is irrelevant, etc. You get my point - if something bad happens daily, like child marriage, does it matter? just let it happen!
She wasn't. She had sex with a couple of her camp buddies but that's it. He, however, has more LIFE experience than her. Flaws do not excuse anything. She didn't exploit him, he exploited her. He was willingly buying her stuff so she would tag along. She didn't run off with quilty because he was more rich, she was in love with him cause she was a dumb little girl and he was her 'type' (and so was Humbert). 16 isn't the most suitable age to reproduce, literally, statistics show that the highest death rate for teenage girls is BIRTH. Woman's body and mind (and man's too) develops until their early/mid 20s.
>And let's not ignore that today most girls that age are very experienced.
Experienced? What does that mean? Being sexualized isn't being experienced, most girls don't have 5+ partners at that age. And just because some might have a few sexual encoutners at that age doesn't excuse pedophilia.
You are disgusting.
And just saying, your "16 is the best age for..." doesn't even apply here, Lolita is 12 years old when she meets Humbert.
I now believe you are missing your therapy session, take a pill. Your irrational side has destroyed your objectivity. Did you forget that this is fiction?
You don't have any arguements left so you have to resort into comebacks such as "take a pill" and "you need therapy" and such. I showed you studies, where's the irrational side? The book may be fiction, but your replies aren't, and your opinion on the book clearlyreflects the outlook you have on the real world. This isn't abook about werevolves and vampires, the Lolita situation could as well happen in real life.
Jim Schooley I seriously pray you never have children. You are demented. Lolita fanboy. Ugh, probably an incel lounging amongst all your depraved women-hating "literature". FBI ALERT! Child porn lover, lots of "fiction" around that which spawns and foments the reality of people LIKE YOU.
And for the record, this author has a few works that depict SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN.. Key word in case you missed it: CHILDREN. Lolita was depicted as a 12 year- old. Those ages are formative years and all human lives and the differences between even a 12 and 16 year-old are immense. Many 16 year-olds are not able to process sexual identity. Why do you think there are Jeffery Epsteins in this world? Because people like you and "literature" like this, that tread the "fine line" between propriety and SMUT exist and contribute to the NORMALIZATION, EXPLOITATION and COMODIFICATION of CHILDREN. Don't even talk to me, I have judged you and I did it with your disgusting and LAME excuses for lusting after a book like Lolita and the author. My conclusion of that judgement is that are that YOU ARE SICK. You are also BLOCKED from communicating here on this forum.
Jim Schooley CORRECTION: In your case I sincerely hope you have no GRANDCHILDREN, since you're a 68 year-old Lolita toting boomer, you're also too old to be an incel. But I know a pervert when I hear them, and you are one.
Your misguided hate is duly noted. lolita is FICTION!!!!! You should seek help.
LAME!!! Excuses, excuses - you have none! Telling some one to take a chill pill is no different than my attack on you. Sick fvck.
My profile here is public, unlike your clandestine identity here. If you should choose to be half as heroic as you claim to be you would be forthright and admit to who you actually are. since you do not seem to want the world to know what your identity is I must assume you are nothing more than a flaming coward.
You should know that Lolita is a tragedy, for all the characters in the work of 'FICTION" meaning it has nothing good that results from it's pages. I for one can tell a masterful novel when I see one because it has succeeded in turning up all the book burning 'Karens" such as you to scream at the innocent bystanders such as me.
Jim Schooley, Lolita is fiction but you made comments about actual children living in the real world. That's the real you coming out. You think 16 is the best age for reproduction. That is idiotic. What is it best for? Your fantasies? Mother and infant survival statistics and common sense say otherwise about your claim. Even avoiding morality won't t change that you are wrong. Also, you claim that girls around the world are married at 16 or earlier. So? How does their unfortunate circumstance translate to your twisted view that children are no different than an adult? I have enough life experience to know that when someone makes ridiculous claims to equate adult sex and self-awareness with that of children, then that particular someone is potentially dangerously unwilling to acknowledge the reality that children are wholly different from adults, even at 16. Science proves it. Common life experience proves it.
first, I think you have a lot of nerve leaving comments about book which you would not read. Actually the age of 16 is when most girls have married historically. You want to judge my morality for what is a truth not a life belief. Please adjust your thinking to place your moral judgments for yourself as others are none of your business. If you want to condemn people here, at least you should have the guts to use your real name and not be a coward about it.
Jim Schooley, I'm not sure at all, that most girls have married at 16 historically. Sometimes only royalties did, for keeping the bloodline going. Anyway, what does it matter? People married earlier for political reasons or because they died early. It still was not okay to marry infants, pre-pubescent or even babies. But when they married babies, they didn't act upon it. Also, those marriages were not good, they often caused some serious psychological damage. But that was life than. Now we can live otherwise. People didn't even know before the 20th century that children are not little adults. Now we know, so it would be time to revise your outdated theories. The human brain develops until around the 25th year of age.
This is one account I just saw, and don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of young ladies being married I am only speaking about what was common. " But it is also the case that marrying at the age of fourteen was not at all uncommon for a newly freed girl like Susie Baker, or indeed for many others throughout the nation in the middle of the nineteenth century. Susie King Taylor may well have glossed over her youthful marriage because it simply was not noteworthy in 1862 or in 1902." I would liked to see what proof you have that marriages were worse in the past than they are today. But you are wrong about the common age for a woman to marry, it was common to marry before 18 and by 24 a woman was called an old maid. You may not know that before 1900 most people married for a common purpose of convenience for both and to further the familys names. If you want to know why this is now a part of this discussion that is complicated and part of a conversation that has remarks deleted for unsuitable digressions I prefer not to go into here. But thanks for asking
In the 17th century England the average age of newlyweds was about 25 years. Just saying... Poor people needed to save up first.
"On average from 17–25. However, the age largely depended on the social-economic status. Marriage were unregulated and there were little to no uniformity. Since child marriage was legal, among royals it wouldn't be uncommon to find marriage between 9 years old and 20 years old."
I am aware that these statistics are largely taken from church records in an era when a union was considered common law and may have been based on a verbal agreement.
This guy still defending pedophilia? Pathetic
That's not her name. Which says it all, really.
Wow, never thought that I'd see a pick-me in the wild
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Christina
(new)
Mar 08, 2016 03:27PM
Maybe because Lolita is a child, and Bumbert is an adult and should, you know, control himself as such.
reply
|
flag
It's what he wants to see. Its the ultimate unreliable narrator tale.
I find it disturbing that some people fail to see that Lolita is in fact a child.
Lolita is described by Humbert, he chooses to see and portray her as self-aware because it excuses his actions; he paints her as the manipulative one, not himself because then he can shift the blame to her; and he sees her unwillingness to participate as a way of punishing him, not the actions of a scared 12 year old. Humbert wants you on his side, he wants understanding from you, he wants you to know it's not his fault. I'm afraid you fell for it.
100% what Wendy said. Humbert Humbert is the narrator of the book, you are getting Lolita filtered through him. In order to abuse children, paedophiles must find ways to justify their behaviour, they must break down the barriers placed in their own head by society by convincing themselves that it is okay, the child wants and is inviting them to carry out their abuse.Regardless, children cannot consent to sexual contact with adults and adults hold the power over them via their size, sex, status within the family... with power comes great responsibility.
.. and then, as the book goes on, it comes out, that she is a trapped child, who is forced to have sex with a predator over and over and qite very often, who cries a lot during sex and every single night. Who wants love and secutiry and cant have it. Who is everyghing but not dumb ot dull, but she keeps as much to herself, as she can.
NOOOOO! Did I read this right? It does not matter how she behaves. Even if we could believe a single word of that pervert (don't wanna dignify him with the name).
What difference does age make, we lock up children who murder. she had been sexually active long before she met HH, and she was showing him things he was unaware of sexually. she wanted him to dote on her and buy her things, so she played him like any female will. Age is a little irrelevant when you stop to think that in the world today the average age of a girl to marry is 16.
>What difference does age make, we lock up children who murder....When? And how do you come to a conclusion that age doesn't matter because... some children end up in jail???
> she had been sexually active long before she met HH, and she was showing him things he was unaware of sexually.She was active sexually with other children. Not a grown man. It wasn't exploitation, unlike Humbert did.
>she wanted him to dote on her and buy her things, so she played him like any female will. Ah, here's the good part. You're literally blaming a child for being a child, blaming her for what children usually always do, asking for toys and spoil them. Yet again, the women are evil exploiters, even if she's 12 and some dude in his 40s drove her mom to suicide and took an advantage of her troubled childhood.
Did she trick him into sex?? How did Lolita played him? It was his choice to have sex (rape) her. Because he's a grown man, and a pedophile. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have sex with her in the first place. He thought she seduced him, that she was all that sexy and foxy but in reality any normal, smart person can see right through the pedo mindset.
>Age is a little irrelevant when you stop to think that in the world today the average age of a girl to marry is 16. How does that make age irrelevant? Ok, by your logic murder is irrelevant, diseases are irrelevant, slavery is irrelevant, etc. You get my point - if something bad happens daily, like child marriage, does it matter? just let it happen!
She wasn't. She had sex with a couple of her camp buddies but that's it. He, however, has more LIFE experience than her. Flaws do not excuse anything. She didn't exploit him, he exploited her. He was willingly buying her stuff so she would tag along. She didn't run off with quilty because he was more rich, she was in love with him cause she was a dumb little girl and he was her 'type' (and so was Humbert). 16 isn't the most suitable age to reproduce, literally, statistics show that the highest death rate for teenage girls is BIRTH. Woman's body and mind (and man's too) develops until their early/mid 20s.>And let's not ignore that today most girls that age are very experienced.
Experienced? What does that mean? Being sexualized isn't being experienced, most girls don't have 5+ partners at that age. And just because some might have a few sexual encoutners at that age doesn't excuse pedophilia.
You are disgusting.
And just saying, your "16 is the best age for..." doesn't even apply here, Lolita is 12 years old when she meets Humbert.
I now believe you are missing your therapy session, take a pill. Your irrational side has destroyed your objectivity. Did you forget that this is fiction?
You don't have any arguements left so you have to resort into comebacks such as "take a pill" and "you need therapy" and such. I showed you studies, where's the irrational side? The book may be fiction, but your replies aren't, and your opinion on the book clearlyreflects the outlook you have on the real world. This isn't abook about werevolves and vampires, the Lolita situation could as well happen in real life.
Jim Schooley I seriously pray you never have children. You are demented. Lolita fanboy. Ugh, probably an incel lounging amongst all your depraved women-hating "literature". FBI ALERT! Child porn lover, lots of "fiction" around that which spawns and foments the reality of people LIKE YOU.
And for the record, this author has a few works that depict SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN.. Key word in case you missed it: CHILDREN. Lolita was depicted as a 12 year- old. Those ages are formative years and all human lives and the differences between even a 12 and 16 year-old are immense. Many 16 year-olds are not able to process sexual identity. Why do you think there are Jeffery Epsteins in this world? Because people like you and "literature" like this, that tread the "fine line" between propriety and SMUT exist and contribute to the NORMALIZATION, EXPLOITATION and COMODIFICATION of CHILDREN. Don't even talk to me, I have judged you and I did it with your disgusting and LAME excuses for lusting after a book like Lolita and the author. My conclusion of that judgement is that are that YOU ARE SICK. You are also BLOCKED from communicating here on this forum.
Jim Schooley CORRECTION: In your case I sincerely hope you have no GRANDCHILDREN, since you're a 68 year-old Lolita toting boomer, you're also too old to be an incel. But I know a pervert when I hear them, and you are one.
Your misguided hate is duly noted. lolita is FICTION!!!!! You should seek help.
LAME!!! Excuses, excuses - you have none! Telling some one to take a chill pill is no different than my attack on you. Sick fvck.
My profile here is public, unlike your clandestine identity here. If you should choose to be half as heroic as you claim to be you would be forthright and admit to who you actually are. since you do not seem to want the world to know what your identity is I must assume you are nothing more than a flaming coward.
You should know that Lolita is a tragedy, for all the characters in the work of 'FICTION" meaning it has nothing good that results from it's pages. I for one can tell a masterful novel when I see one because it has succeeded in turning up all the book burning 'Karens" such as you to scream at the innocent bystanders such as me.
Jim Schooley, Lolita is fiction but you made comments about actual children living in the real world. That's the real you coming out. You think 16 is the best age for reproduction. That is idiotic. What is it best for? Your fantasies? Mother and infant survival statistics and common sense say otherwise about your claim. Even avoiding morality won't t change that you are wrong. Also, you claim that girls around the world are married at 16 or earlier. So? How does their unfortunate circumstance translate to your twisted view that children are no different than an adult? I have enough life experience to know that when someone makes ridiculous claims to equate adult sex and self-awareness with that of children, then that particular someone is potentially dangerously unwilling to acknowledge the reality that children are wholly different from adults, even at 16. Science proves it. Common life experience proves it.
first, I think you have a lot of nerve leaving comments about book which you would not read. Actually the age of 16 is when most girls have married historically. You want to judge my morality for what is a truth not a life belief. Please adjust your thinking to place your moral judgments for yourself as others are none of your business. If you want to condemn people here, at least you should have the guts to use your real name and not be a coward about it.
Jim Schooley, I'm not sure at all, that most girls have married at 16 historically. Sometimes only royalties did, for keeping the bloodline going. Anyway, what does it matter? People married earlier for political reasons or because they died early. It still was not okay to marry infants, pre-pubescent or even babies. But when they married babies, they didn't act upon it. Also, those marriages were not good, they often caused some serious psychological damage. But that was life than. Now we can live otherwise. People didn't even know before the 20th century that children are not little adults. Now we know, so it would be time to revise your outdated theories. The human brain develops until around the 25th year of age.
This is one account I just saw, and don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of young ladies being married I am only speaking about what was common. " But it is also the case that marrying at the age of fourteen was not at all uncommon for a newly freed girl like Susie Baker, or indeed for many others throughout the nation in the middle of the nineteenth century. Susie King Taylor may well have glossed over her youthful marriage because it simply was not noteworthy in 1862 or in 1902." I would liked to see what proof you have that marriages were worse in the past than they are today. But you are wrong about the common age for a woman to marry, it was common to marry before 18 and by 24 a woman was called an old maid. You may not know that before 1900 most people married for a common purpose of convenience for both and to further the familys names. If you want to know why this is now a part of this discussion that is complicated and part of a conversation that has remarks deleted for unsuitable digressions I prefer not to go into here. But thanks for asking
In the 17th century England the average age of newlyweds was about 25 years. Just saying... Poor people needed to save up first.
"On average from 17–25. However, the age largely depended on the social-economic status. Marriage were unregulated and there were little to no uniformity. Since child marriage was legal, among royals it wouldn't be uncommon to find marriage between 9 years old and 20 years old."
I am aware that these statistics are largely taken from church records in an era when a union was considered common law and may have been based on a verbal agreement.
This guy still defending pedophilia? Pathetic
That's not her name. Which says it all, really.
Wow, never thought that I'd see a pick-me in the wild
