/lit/ - Literature

>>13587900
yas, but still based as fuck
also pedophilia is a sexual minority and need social protection on a par with other LGBT

>>13587900
I dont see how you can write about which little girls are ok to fuck and which aren't without wanting to fuck little girls
Man's a genius though

>>13587900
No he wasn't. Just listen to how he talks about Lewis Carroll:

>He has a pathetic affinity with H.H. but some odd scruple prevented me from alluding in Lolita to his wretched perversion and to those ambiguous photographs he took in dim rooms. He got away with it, as so many other Victorians got away with pederasty and nympholepsy. His were sad scrawny little nymphets, bedraggled and half-undressed, or rather semi-undraped, as if participating in some dusty and dreadful charade.

>>13587925
She made clear it wasn't okay to fuck her though

No. He's using it as a pleb filter, because people with good reading comprehension will see his revulsion, and people who have the reading comprehension of The Sun's readers will want to burn his house down. By asking this question you have lumped yourself in with people who think big tits are news and need to be printed regularly in the news in case anyone forgets what they look like.

>>13587900
No, he was an ephebophile.

>>13587937
Tell that to Humbert, not i

>>13587935
And? Lewis Carroll was a hack, lmao

>>13587925
It just a portray of how deranged minds can justify anything by turning it on its head.
How do you face the reality of fucking an innocent girl? Well she is not innocent but the devil incarnate, he woude never touch a innocent girl.

>>13587994
yas, shy was "nymphet" - devil inside a little girl
thats one of general points of a book