/lit/ - Literature

>>11491470
Yes, because she was a dumb bimbo who didn't know any better. Humbert Humbert was worse though for taking advantage of this fact.

>>11491470
She seduced Humbert not the other way around

>>11491470
neat, someone saved my pic.

>>11491470
That's just the unreliable narrator manipulating the audiences reception.

>>11491600
If you are the guy who drew this for that thread: my compliments to you. It's, pretty much, how I now visualize those characters.

>>11491615
Then you have to question why he includes certain moments that make him seem worse.

>>11491470
No, she was a child.

I masturbated while reading this book and now I can no longer enjoy it.

>>11491470
HH looks just like TS Eliot in that sketch.

Humbert is a liar and never had anything sexual with her. Do you not understand the subtext?

>>11491615
>unreliable narrator
>Includes the fact Dolores tells him "you raped me" when he meets her when she's older

No, I don't think he's being unreliable. I think Dolores is just an airhead and that HH made her life even more miserable than it would have been.

>>11491888
Okay.

>>11491928
The fact that he raped her and killed quilty are facts, that's why he is in jail awaiting his prosecution. He's unreliable in manipulating the story to evoke sympathy for himself.

>>11492443
He's in jail for running a red light.

>>11491637
So more or less exactly as they appear in the film version.

Of course she did. Nabokov called her a nymphet for a reason.

>>11492929
That don’t like Jeremy Irons or James Mason

Humbert intentionally downplays every instance of the novel wherein Dolores tries to communicate the literal pain caused by their intercourse. Pierce though his masquerades, he doesn't see things correctly. Of course he's also trying to paint himself in a good light.

Why do you think he wants us to think of her not as Dolores but as a Nymphet?

>>11491654
>No, she was a child
>children have no sexuality
I love this meme. So completely at odds with experience, but people cling to it

>>11493110
Get out

>>11493110
>>>/tv/

>>11493110
Children do have sexuality, it's just not for adults.

>>11493110
Do you want to go to jail?

>>11491470
>reading Nabokov for plot

Oooof

>>11493411
This

>>11493149
>>11493168
>>11493416
12-13 year old girls were considered marriageable for most of human history. And if anything, with better nutrition, modern girls mature even quicker. Biology didn't suddenly change because we invented age of consent laws. You've been socially conditioned to find it wrong.

>do you think Lo did shit that even the unreliable narrator doesn't accuse her of
I think you didn't read the book, along with half the people ITT.

>>11491470
Yes.

>>11491470
All my female cousins think so.

>>11495486
That's betrothal or marriage. Consummation didn't typically happen until the girl was older.

Childbearing has a significant risk of causing permanent health problems for girls as young as 16 years old, and that's with modern medical care.

Age of consent should be at the absolute minimum 16. And 18 seems more reasonable to me because some individuals mature slower.

By the way fornication and adultery should be illegal.

>>11495622
Nope. Very common for girls of 13 to be sexually active, eg Mary or Juliet. Age of menarche is falling all the time in the west, it's only a matter of time before we update our social constructs about consent and sexuality

>>11495641

>>11495637
I say again, girls as old as 16 can experience permanent medical problems from childbearing because their bodies aren't developed enough to carry and deliver a child. Having a menstrual cycle has nothing to do with it. Are you blind and can't read? Girls that young shouldn't be having sex, regardless of if they are or not.

>>11495815
>can
Women at any age can have problems with sex and pregnancy. You are clinging to medicine to justify your unwarranted squeamishness about something perfectly healthy and natural. The age of consent is a recent invention, changes from country to country, and would have been considered laughable in most other cultures and societies. In any case, women are reaching physical maturity younger than ever, and outdated victorian concepts about sex being harmful simply don't apply anymore, even if they ever did.

>>11495878
>a significant risk of causing permanent health problems
Did you notice the SIGNIFICANT RISK part in your blindness?

Girls under the age of 16 who carry a child to term are more likely than not to develop problems like lifelong urinary incontinence. Risk factors quickly drop to negligible after that.

You're a pedophile and the only attempt at justification going on here is yours.

>Did Lolita instigate it?

No. Nabokov instigated it and we're all victims of that unreliable narrator.

>>Reading Nabokov for plot.

>Reading Nabokov.

>>11495885
>Risk factors quickly drop to negligible after that.
They don't as well you know. Women can have multiple health issues which make pregnancy risky, should we make it taboo to have sex with them?
You strike me as some sort of Christian bigot, arguments very like yours are used to condemn homosexual sex as 'unnatural' and 'harmful'.
Also, you've ignored the existence of contraception, or non PIV sex, which completely remove your objections about the possible risks of pregnancy.

>>11491658
>now I can no longer enjoy it
should have used a napkin

>>11495933
>They don't as well you know. Women can have multiple health issues which make pregnancy risky, should we make it taboo to have sex with them?
The risks go from "more likely than not" to "very low" as the individual develops childbearing hips.

>You strike me as some sort of Christian bigot
You strike me as some sort of pedophile.

>arguments very like yours are used to condemn homosexual sex as 'unnatural' and 'harmful'.
Homosexual sex is unnatural and harmful. The medical dangers of anal penetration are among the worst things a person can do to their body.

>Also, you've ignored the existence of contraception, or non PIV sex, which completely remove your objections about the possible risks of pregnancy.
I'm sure that people who want to rape children would also ignore such things, rendering this point moot.

Anyway, mind sharing your personal contact information so we can continue this conversation in privacy?

>>11495967
>Homosexual sex is unnatural and harmful.
Ah, you are a Christian bigot. Thanks for sharing

Humbert put himself in an authorative position over Lolita, took advantage of her youth and innocence and used her in a way that fucked her up, does it even matter what exact age she was or if her hips were suitable for giving birth?

>>11495973
If you ever face the decision between raping a child and killing yourself, you know what to do.

>>11495986
It didn't fuck her up though. One of the main points of the novel is that Dolores remains an utterly typical American teen, indistinguishable in her banality from the others. It's impossible to make her worse because she is already completely spiritually depraved.

>>11496008

This is a very ignorant/toxic mentality to have in my opinion. Especially considering your base for that argument is that she's "banal as any other American". You think because someone is boring that they can't be plunged into further misery by an abuser? No one goes off as "utterly typical" after being traumatized man. And certainly, Lolita would've been traumatized by her experience with HH. To think otherwise, I believe, is absurd.

she instigates the first time they fuck, doesnt she?

>>11495885
>Girls under the age of 16 who carry a child to term are more likely than not to develop problems like lifelong urinary incontinence.
Not him, but that's not true any more. Now the greatest risk for u16 is emotional and educational risks (which are bad for both the mother and the child and increase infant mortality). Menarche +2 years is, on average, when pregnancy risks due to physical immaturity drop off. The problem with it moving younger generally for health risks is that obese 10 year olds will have all kinds of muscloskeletal problems and organ damage, along with greater chances of early menarche. The risk of their obesity which triggers earlier sexual maturity is far greater risk to them, and their emotional immaturity a far greater risk to their offspring. The population is changing so the risks are changing. If girls were still achieving menarche at 14, then your 16 cut off is perfectly apt. The fact they're becoming sexually mature as a side effect of their even more risky lifestyle is a marginal risk compared to how already fucked their body is by being fatter than ever.
>tl;dr- that girls are menstruating younger should be treated as a larger risk factor to their health than the potential for pregnancy that arises from it

>>11495989
Not a choice anyone has to make outside of the weird moral quandaries of over-imaginative teenagers.

>>11493110
Fuck off, pedophile trash.

>>11493168
>>>>/tv/
Haha, I laughed

>>11492929
Lol
Why are you mad over literally nothing

>>11495967
>The medical dangers of anal penetration are among the worst things a person can do to their body.
Only if it's done right

>>11495486
>is/ought

>>11491501
Yeah, the drugging was her fault.

>not putting out

sshhshsh

>>11497071
Pedoanon fucking obliterated

>>11497071
>sexual abuse of children is nasty shit
>can't prove I ought not do it

>>11493110
>>11495486
>>11495878
K. Y. S. MY. DUDE.

>>11493110

Let the man speak he tell tha truth...

>>11493149
>>11493416
>>11495989
>>11496369
>>11497307

>>11495641

this, humbert had his fare share of guilt and he admited, however lolita wanted, thats normal guys in 7th grade a girl in my class got pregnant, a cousin of a friend of mine was girlfriend of our school inspector, in the other street there is a street loli who fucks her playground friends, its life my dude, pubescents have sexuality.

>>11497378
Shh! Don't say such things. Sexuality appears from nowhere at midnight on your 18th birthday.

>>11495637
Marriage between female children and adult males has not been ubiquitous in European culture for centuries, not since antiquity as the introduction of Christianity to polytheistic pagan societies facilitated a cultural shift were females married later and males earlier. If it's not been part of out cultural tapestry for atleast 800~ years, why revive it?

>>11497968
>being this unironically Eurocentric
It's still a common custom in tribal Pakistan, and thusly is just as valid as our own cultural practices, you ghastly bigot