"A super-cute Lolita look"

Trillian, I've read what the (male) critics had to say about Lolita. It was very much a nudge nudge wink wink approach. THe degradation of Lolita really was secondary in the eyes of the men who praised this book, which was all focused on the inner-world of the sex offender giving much credence given to his worldview and his conscience.

Who cares about that, really. Or should I say, more to the point, what kind of men gush over a book that dehumanizes a young girl and humanizes a sex offender

There we go again with the failure in communication.

"In fact , how many men don't do it simply because the opportunity never arises, or because they might get caught?"
That, to me, does not sound as if you believe in the humanity of men. It sounds as if you believe that men pretend to humanity because they fear the consequences, rather than choosing not to rape because they find it just as abhorrent as you do.

(and I have no idea where you got the idea that I thought sexual violence was inevitable)

Sakura you were not originallytalking about Rap so it's irrelevant to bringit up now as well you know.

sakura are you reading a different thread? Yours appears to have different words on it to the ones written by other posters.

Trillian I really feel sorry for you if you think that the violence against women we see today, the rapes, the porn the murders are inevitable

I am a radical feminist because I believe in the humanity of men. I believe it does not have to be this way . BUt pretending that a lot of men don't enjoy rape and watching porn (which is rape) ain't going to bring any changes about

Well said itma I read this book by choice as an adult (it was one of a number of books I picked up in a charity shop). It was a while ago but I still remember feeling how manipulative the narrator was and how he could not be trusted because he was not seeing the situation as it truly was. He had so many excuses. He blamed. I also remember how it felt to be about 12/13 when I was just starting to become aware of my sexuality and how naive I was. Thankfully I was always safe but if a predator like HH had been around I can see how susceptible I would have been to being groomed and abused because I could not see how slight the boundary between being seen to be attractive and being taken advantage of.

To those of you who have not read the book I suggest you read it before passing comment. It really isn't written to be about the Lolita image of the teenage temptress. It's a look inside the mind of a deeply disturbed, flawed human being.

To the answer the question of why write about it? Well with any book about something "other" there is the appeal of looking into a world similar yet different to our own. This particular book also really makes you think and is very clever in the way the veneer is gradually stripped back to reveal the horrifying reality. Sociopaths, psychopaths and personality disorders have always been subjects for books and other media because they are so similar to our lives that we can relate but so far removed we can be entertained (by entertained I mean made to experience something: horror, revulsion, love, fear etc etc).

Of course most men are not attracted to prepubesent girls and most men are not abusers and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. It is also to deny why Lolita is so sensationalist; it is similar to reality but hugely removed at the same time.

BY Julie Bindel:

Men who cannot bear to look in the mirror often call radical feminists man-haters. It would make them feel profoundly uncomfortable if they had any male-privilege removed whatsoever, and many who use the insult hate themselves far more than I ever could.
A taxi driver told me yesterday that rape was ?Terrible, but I can understand men getting frustrated if their wives don?t let them get their rocks off.? Another told me, during an interview about why men pay for sex that, ?Prostitution stops rape. If men can?t get it when they really need it, some innocent little girl might have to suffer.? Both men clearly believed that all men are potential rapists. I never said it. They did.

Finn Mackay, a feminist activist and academic has organised the Reclaim the Night march in London for the past six years, believes that men do have a role to play within feminism, but ? it is not coming along to meetings and taking part in the decision-making process. ?They can stop rape by not raping, and bring the sex industry to its knees by not paying for
sex,? says MacKay, without a trace of irony.
?Oppression doesn?t just happen to women like bad weather. Men as a group systematically oppress and exploit women, and feminism is the political movement to challenge and change that.?

I would genuinely like to see all men become non-abusive human beings

link

WHy are you all pretending these are my views of men?

I'm just repeating what men themselves say.

Men boast about raping and murdering bitches all the time. Listen to any rap "artist", A billion dollar porn industry is built on the real life rapes of women.

I'm going to search for that Michale Moore quote where he basically says that the only people who stick up for men's sexuality are women.

I will concede that patriarchy fucks up men's sexuality though

Been reading this thread and have to say that wolfhound is absolutely right.
I 'teach' this book at uni from time to time and I've had students get upset about it (thinking it is somehow pro-peodiphilia) because they have only read the beginning. The book is a really useful text for showing how unreliable narration and ironic self-revelation work (Nabokov clearly but subtly undermines the narrator's account and his world view) and showing how an author can create an narrator who is NOT the author. You can't read the book properly and not think Humbert Humbert is a horrible manipulative, abusive man. Nabokov has Humbert Humbert use his linguistic skills and literary knowledge to romanticise and misrepresent his actions but we see through that. Humbert Humbert denies 'Lolita' a voice except at one point near the end when she speaks and she refers to him raping her. It is a really powerful moment. Nabokov creates a narrator who uses his gender, class, education to demean and abuse women ('Lolita's' mother) and children.

The book is not titillating in any way. I agree that some people have confused the novel with the films (Adrian Lyne directed the more recent vile one with Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert) and the general cultural bullshit around the term 'Lolita'. We should be angry that this has been done to a book that is very damning about male abuse of power. As has been said already, Humbert Humbert renames Dolores 'Lolita' - this is part of his abuse of power, renaming her, denying her her true identity. It's even more ironic that the name has become part of our culture in a way that Humbert Humbert would have approved of but Nabokov wouldn't. That's society's fault, not Nabokov's.

The argument that it is not 'original' -well, the sexual abuse of children was not a common topic in published fiction in the 1950s. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum. And art should deal with awful subjects that people would prefer to shy away from. Just because a book exists about child abuse doesn't mean that the author is promoting child abuse.

Most men do not rape.

Most men do not abuse children.

Most men are not violent.

And do you know why?

Because they don't want to.

The exact same reason why most women don't do this kind of thing.

If you believe that most men would be like that given half a chance then I'm afraid we cannot have a conversation - we are starting from such wholly different positions that there can be no meaningful communication.

Sakura, I am really disturbed by your view of 'most men'. It is not my experience at all, and I am very sorry if it has been yours. With a thoroughly decent father, brother, husband, and most importantly two beautiful, innocent, loving little sons, I cannot see the male sex the way you do.

And, also, I think it is a common and very misconceived error to confuse the narrator of a book with the author. Humbert Humbert is NOT Nabokov, and to imagine that Nabokov is using him as a mouthpiece is to misunderstand the book completely. The gap between what characters say and what the text implies is a mainstay of literary fiction.

i tend to believe that most men don't abuse children because they are decent human beings. i also tend to believe that 'most' men are not rapists.

and i still call myself a feminist.

i guess we are all entitled to our own opinions, eh?

I rather object to the 'men know that most of them rape' too. Have you any evidence for this statement sakura? I do sometimes wonder how you interact with men at all if you really have such an incredibly low opinion of all of them.

I have to say Sakura that this comment of yours is awful

CHild sexual abuse was and is, frighteningly common.
In fact , how many men don't do it simply because the opportunity never arises, or because they might get caught

It's not on and it infers that you know some secret about men in general....which you do not.

Dione
"I find "The Sort of Thing that Can Happen to Any Man" statement odd

Most women do, Dione. it was a male judge that uttered those words about a sex offender. Men know better than women what goes on in mens's heads. Men know that most of them rape, one of the main justifications for prostitution was so that men wouldn't go around raping "ordinary" women. (prostitutes can't be raped, of course )

ANyway, my point is that men persistently drop hints about the sexuality of men. CHild sexual abuse was and is, frighteningly common.
In fact , how many men don't do it simply because the opportunity never arises, or because they might get caught?

WOmen, in their innocence, just don't want to believe it even when men are telling them

The original movie was by Stanley Kubrick. My understanding is that he wasn't allowed to use a younger child - in fact having a 14 year old was a big deal at the time. Humbert is portrayed as a very disturbed and delusional man, but in a lot of ways it's more about the interplay between him and the Peter Sellers character and Lolita is almost a secondary character (although I don't personally think she is primarily a seductress, more a confused and unhappy child) . I've not read the original book, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were quite different. I also doubt that many people have seen the film either. It's certainly not titillating, although I got the impression that the remake might well have been.

I haven't read Lolita since I was in my teens and all I remember now is being very squirrely about the male-gazey aspect of it. I didn't get what it was at the time, it is only now that I can put a label on that feeling. All I knew then was that it was not a book aimed for me, it was about me, or at least about a girl my age. I have been in no hurry to re-read it as an adult, but perhaps I should. I have been re-reading lots of my teen books (1984, Catcher in the Rye, To Kill A Mockingbird, Flowers in the Attic ())

I am a bit raw about the older men/young teens thing as I have an unresolved situation with two older friends of mine who have taken umbrage at my reaction to a (to them) light hearted sexualised comment about schoolgirls.

That movie was directed by Stanley Kubrick.

I find "The Sort of Thing that Can Happen to Any Man" statement odd, as HH's attraction to young girls is quite particular. Not only must they be young, but they must be very similar in looks to his first love (who he kissed as a boy), who died.

I agree all references to "Lolita-style" are based on the film (the old black and white one) rather than Nabokov's description. HH's views on Dolores' mother was the first time I realised that men would target women with a view of abusing their kids.

the whole Japanese Lolita comments reminded me of this disgusting music video used to be on Music channels all the time like last year, the

warning its a bit sick singer looks like a kid

here's the real link

[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxPGnWiLFfo&has_verified=1&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fverify_age%3Fnext_url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DcxPGnWiLFfo%26hl%3Den-GB We are human beings not machines they tell you when asked why they're not having children.

50% of Japanese women over 30 are childless, and Japan will soon face the sharpest population drop in the history of civilization..
Their second class status is the reason why they're "opting out".. so what do you think the politicians are doing? Trying to alter the status quo and liberate women? Nope... ROBOTS are being developed to take the place of the children that would have been born. The lack of children is going to devastate the GDP in years to come and mothers receive huge wads of cash every 4 months to help them with their kids..

BUt men would choose extinction over women's liberation any day.

sAfly, I think you're right. Trouble is, the bloody men fall for it! And women! We're a crazy species.

I'm not sure if I want to admire it as something ironic and self-aware, something intended (subconsciously?) to force the Japanese public to question their own values...

freeraneeggs You put that so well....it crystalises my own feelings....but what's this about Japanese women refusing the have children?