4chan archive /lit/ (index)
similar threads
2014-02-26 11:04 4610160 Anonymous (tumblr_luxnz3wW831qd9a66o2_250[1].gif 194x300 42kB)
Is this book legitimately good, or is it just popular among 4chan because it's full of pedophiles that can identify with the concept? I'm considering reading it but I just fucking hate pedophiles, jesus christ, I don't think there's anything else in the world I hate as much as pedos

1 min later 4610165 Anonymous
A) Nothing wrong with pedophilia, just another fetish. B) Nabokov is one of the best American writers of all time. Pale Fire is obviously better, but still... 6 out of 10 if troll

3 min later 4610169 Anonymous
It's one of the most beautiful novels ever written. You don't have to identify with the narrator to like the book, and you can hate him all you want, although you probably won't.

3 min later 4610173 Anonymous
It's a masterpiece in terms of aesthetics of prose fiction.

4 min later 4610177 Anonymous
>>4610165 A fetish is sexualizing something that isn't inherently sexual.

5 min later 4610179 Anonymous
>>4610165 Not a troll, I just fucking hate pedophiles. I have no sympathy for them in any way. Am I seriously a minority here in thinking pedophilia is fucking bad?

7 min later 4610185 Anonymous
>>4610179 You're not in a minority, but you're in the wrong. Unless you only think child abuse and molestation is bad. Anyway, no, Lolita is not "just popular on 4chan."

7 min later 4610186 Anonymous
>>4610179 Whats wrong with it?

8 min later 4610190 Anonymous
>>4610179 Humbert (the protagonist of the books) is not a pedophile. He is a hebephile, which means he is a person sexually attracted to girls in the first stages of puberty. Most pedophiles are troubled, sick human beings. This doesn't mean that they are excused. They are just as bad as every other sicko, but are somehow held up as the pinnacle of sickos.

10 min later 4610200 Anonymous
>>4610179 Probably, unless you're conflating the term with "predator".

11 min later 4610202 Anonymous
>>4610179 Pedophiles are poor tortured souls of people who have most likely suffered abuse in the early years of their life and will most likely never be able to express their sexuality in a meaningful way. Child molestors on the other hand, are indeed horrible people. I don't see how you got those mixed up. But anyways, this is completely off topic as Lolita is about a hebephile.

11 min later 4610205 Anonymous
>>4610190 Meaningless, clinical terms to describe behavior that has nothing to do with clinical theory.

13 min later 4610210 Anonymous
>>4610179 I think pedophilia is bad, but I'm not as emotional about it as you seem to be. It's often forgotten that not all pedophiles harm children, which is the immoral part; the attraction itself has little to do with morality. I could see myself being creeped out by, but not hating, a person based on their sexual attraction, unless they actually did rape children. They didn't choose what they're attracted to any more than you did.

18 min later 4610222 Anonymous
>>4610210 It's not really that creepy when you remember the fact that a lot of guys fantasize about rape.

23 min later 4610234 Anonymous
OP here, I didn't mean to come off as baselessly-prejudiced against pedophiles, I personally have a bad experience with that type of person and it weighs greatly on my judgement of their morals and all that stuff. When I was in elementary school a teacher raped and abused several students, mostly little girls, but also boys that were small and girly-looking enough to pass as a girl, like myself. A friend of mine was kidnapped when she threatened to tell the police what was happening, she and the teacher were never found. Kind of a dramatic story I guess, but it's affected me greatly and I still feel fucking sick when people try to justify the actions of people who hoard or create child pornography, or rape or hurt children. I don't personally believe a child can consent to something like sex because they're so vulnerable emotionally and physically, they can very easily be overpowered and badly hurt, or killed. Hopefully this adds a little context to my reasoning, I just don't want to read a book that tries to make me feel sorry for someone like that.

27 min later 4610247 Anonymous
>>4610165 >Nabokov is one of the best American writers Nabokov is considered an American writer? I didn't know that.

27 min later 4610248 Anonymous
>>4610234 Kids generally can't consent because of the social relationship between adults and children makes it awkward for the child to say "NO". I don't understand the social obsession with child rape as singled out from rape in general. Abusing and raping adults is bad and extremely common, but I guess it's just easier to single out child rapists because rapists generally prefer to target adults.

28 min later 4610251 Anonymous
>Lolita is only popular on 4chan Are you fucking retarded?

32 min later 4610259 Anonymous
>>4610160 Every man is a pedophile, you're just being hypocrite

38 min later 4610275 Anonymous
>>4610259 "Pedophile" is an identity, so no.

49 min later 4610305 Anonymous
It's an excellent book. Would you be similarly bothered about reading Perfume: The Story of a Murderer or Crime and Punishment? Does Cask of Amontillado make you rage? Definitely, you better never never touch Sade.

1 hours later 4610344 Anonymous sunatin jones
i read it when i was edgemastering 9th grade english and then read it a little bit later and it was pretty good. two decent movies, jeremy irons the tamer humbert

1 hours later 4610348 Anonymous
>>4610160 it's good... it wind up to be a kind of morality tale.

1 hours later 4610391 Best Iliad Translation?
>>4610160 You're not meant to sympathize with the main character. It's hardly a flattering portrayal of a child molester, even if Humbert tries to make it seem as such.

1 hours later 4610401 Anonymous
>>4610247 He was a naturalized American during the period in which he wrote Lolita to Pale Fire. He refers to himself as an American author during Lolita's postscript.

7 hours later 4611332 Anonymous
>>4611324 Shut up. All you pedos, shut up.

7 hours later 4611336 Anonymous
>>4610160 If you're on the fence, OP, just read some of Nabokov's other books first. That's what I plan on doing.

7 hours later 4611351 Anonymous
Are you some of you guys really pedos or do you just enjoy playing devil's advocate?

7 hours later 4611363 Anonymous
The book condemns hebephilia anyway, Humbert is not a sympathetic character.

7 hours later 4611374 Anonymous
>>4611351 My time on the internet has introduced me to a few people had a similar interest in children. All of them were smart enough to keep their hands to themselves.

7 hours later 4611391 Anonymous
>>4611374 Yeah but I'm still going to think that anyone who fantasizes about having sex with kids is creepy and I wouldn't allow them in any situation that involves children. But also, I really enjoyed Lolita. I don't feel the same disgust towards hebephiles but I still think that it's wrong for an older man to take advantage of any situation with a young girl like that IRL.

7 hours later 4611422 Anonymous
>>4611403 I agree with your points, but I don't think the age of consent should be lowered. Just allow these young women to live in peace. I don't really care if older men don't get to fuck them.

7 hours later 4611435 Anonymous (1389156980609.jpg 462x435 179kB)
>>4611403 >Most serious hebes You should knows that is a slur for shylocks

7 hours later 4611452 Anonymous
>>4611391 >Yeah but I'm still going to think that anyone who fantasizes about having sex with kids What about guys who fantasize about rape?

7 hours later 4611457 Anonymous
>>4611452 Yeah, I'm going to think that those people are bad as well.

7 hours later 4611463 Anonymous
>>4611457 >yfw Winston from 1984 fantasized about raping Julia

7 hours later 4611467 Anonymous
>>4611452 >>4611457 What I mean to add is, any pedophile's fantasy/actual doing is inherently rape-y. Not all men are rapists. It's much harder to discern who is a rapist and who is not.

7 hours later 4611472 Anonymous
Yeah, read this book and try to tell me how much of a "pedophile hater" you are when you get erections as you read it. Come on. What, are you afraid of being a hypocritical piece of shit? A joke of a human being? Go read it anon. Nothing to be afraid of.

7 hours later 4611478 Anonymous
>>4611472 Are you stating that all men are inherently pedophiles when confronted with imagery that excites them? Because, I've read the book, and I still don't feel like a pedo.

7 hours later 4611479 Anonymous
>>4611467 Not true at all, a pedophile can fantasize about a twenty year old with the body of a little girl.

7 hours later 4611481 Anonymous
>>4611478 HOLY SHIT WHAT A FUCKING PEDOPHILE PIECE OF SHIT H AHAHAHA EVERYONE POINT AND LAUGH AT THE PEDOPHILE

7 hours later 4611483 Anonymous
>>4611478 I should say, *meant to somehow excite them. Because I've read the book and didn't feel aroused.

7 hours later 4611487 Anonymous
>>4611481 I don't know what you're getting at but I don't want any discussion to be focused on how pedophilia is okay. I'm not trying to shame anyone but I'll contribute to the argument any way I can.

7 hours later 4611488 Anonymous (1390240292600.jpg 512x512 94kB)
>>4611481 Someone's a little sensitive :^)

8 hours later 4611497 Anonymous
>guise hes not ephebfile hes hebefile your wrong hes pedofile

8 hours later 4611499 Anonymous
>>4610179 >I have no sympathy for [people who masturbate to different things than I do]. Maybe the pedophiles aren't the ones with the problem here.

8 hours later 4611501 Anonymous
>>4611487 So long as the child inititiates (as in, the idea of sex is overtly expressed by the child, either in action--such as physical initiation--or in words), and the adult regularly double checks to ensure the child doesn't feel pressured in any way, then I don't see what's wrong with it. It's just that that's so rare that banning adult-child relationship altogether is reasonable. By the way, pedophilia is a silly term since it isn't specifically defined. how many erotic thoughts per month do you have to have regarding children in order to qualify?

8 hours later 4611506 Anonymous
>>4611499 Either you are a pedophile or are playing devil's advocate for an issue you shouldn't think lightly about.

8 hours later 4611509 Anonymous
>>4611501 I'd like to beat that fucker till he's darker than a nigger. I can't abide men who fuck children. Its perverted and frankly evil in my opinion. Those who fuck the children with their ill-informed consent are in my opinion the worst, and if I had vast reality manipulating powers like a cosmic entity, they would spend eternity getting savaged to death by wild hogs in a salt rock quarry while a perpetual blizzard shrieks in full blown blizz-o-caust mode. Seriously. Those people are garbage and they need to be removed from the gene pool.

8 hours later 4611512 Anonymous
>>4611501 ...Jesus. You should gb2 NAMBLA forums. Normalizing those kinds of thoughts are dangerous.

8 hours later 4611515 Anonymous
>>4611506 Or maybe I'm just a sympathetic human being because I don't care about what people masturbate to (assuming they don't make a move on the child). You're right though, I'm literally Hitler, let me show myself out. And for your information, I'm a lolicon, thank you very much. It's an esteemed title for gentlemen, such as myself.

8 hours later 4611520 Anonymous
>>4611515 Don't feel so offended. I'm just saying that you are contributing to the larger issues at hand (such as child rape) by stating that it's perfectly fine for people to fap to cp. Lolicon is something different, though. In that a child isn't being exploited in the creation of it.

8 hours later 4611521 Anonymous (1390518066998.jpg 625x626 77kB)
>>4610160 Every time /lit/ Every time

8 hours later 4611523 Anonymous
>>4611515 Also, you are only sharing your sympathies for horny fuckers such as yourself. If you were truly a sympathetic human being, you would care more about the well-being of children than the rights of someone to masturbate to the exploitation of one.

8 hours later 4611526 Anonymous
>>4611512 Yet selling cinematic fantasies of violence to children is a-okay.

8 hours later 4611527 Anonymous
>>4611520 That entirely depends on the avenue by which people acquire the CP. If someone posts CP on 4chan, and some random faggot looks at it and saves/masturbates to it, he isn't contributing to anything. I never said "it's fine to look at CP" because I understand that there are people who do pay for these kinds of things, and that it creates incentives for raping children, which I side with you on.

8 hours later 4611529 Anonymous
>>4611523 >Also, you are only sharing your sympathies for horny fuckers such as yourself. I'm only being explicit about it in this case, but you do not know who I am truly sympathetic with. But again, literally hitler. >If you were truly a sympathetic human being, you would care more about the well-being of children than the rights of someone to masturbate to the exploitation of one. Depends on the situation. And by that I mean, is the guy masturbating to an old picture and he's not supporting child rape incentive-wise? Yes? Then who's he hurting? Besides, I was more thinking along the lines of finding little kids attractive, you're the one who shoved "You think it's cool to watch CP" down my throat. You can masturbate to things without looking at pictures, ya dig?

8 hours later 4611548 Anonymous
>>4611529 Ok, if you insist so much, you're literally hitler.

8 hours later 4611554 Anonymous (1324333309058.jpg 500x455 56kB)
>>4611548 das rite bb don u 4get it

8 hours later 4611598 Anonymous
>>4610160 There was a thread on reddit where Lolita was listed as like half of the peoples favorite book..

8 hours later 4611616 Anonymous
>>4611598 Reddit is far from a "great" social justice community that people on this site like to portray it as. Many of the people there share the same opinions people on this site do and the mention of any sort of controversial topic on the popular boards has the same reaction most people do here. But yeah, anyone into lit knows that lolita is one of the greatest books ever.

13 hours later 4612178 Anonymous
>>4610202 >I don't see how you got those mixed up. Not the one you replied to, but I'd say it probably has something to do with the widespread tendency in the english-speaking world, to use those two terms interchangeably. Which is a great pity, I think, considering the inherent implications of doing so. It's basically equating volition to commit a given crime, with the crime itself, which is an obviously stillborn principle to have. It's a worryingly dystopian tendency, frankly. Thoughtcrimes and attitudinal convictions by default thereof sneaking themselves into the commonplace of collective consciousness. It's like what Burr says about there being no reason to hit a woman. By limiting language and thereby creating a culture of jumping to pre-packaged conclusions, not to mention stifling dissent with unspoken threats, you're killing the potential for any sort of examination as to how what came to pass came to pass, and also aborting any possible understanding as to why. No one ever chose their sexual proclivities. Paedophilia, unlike child molestation, is a trait, not an act, and involves no volition, so I cannot in good conscience moralise against it. Just as you say, a majority of paedophiles came to be that way as a direct result of suffering abuse themselves, though I suspect the cultural taboo creates a slippery slope, too, with fleeting fancy sliding rapidly into downright obsession from sheer lack of opportunity to vent and communicate about it with other people, born of taught shame and fear of ostracisation. Imagine if whatever you happened to like was deemed reprobate, and considered criminal, by the powers that be in your given social context, and the cognitive dissonance of agreeing with that assessment for your own reasons. I can only count myself lucky not to have to deal with that. What a shit fucking hand to be dealt by the universe.

13 hours later 4612188 Anonymous (Frank-Zappa.jpg 1200x803 667kB)
>>4610179 You should consider it a mental illness. It's something you just have feelings for, not because you want it, but because that's how you're coded. If they have never hurt children and never will do, I don't see the harm in it. But if I was one, I'd go to a doctor or something for help.

14 hours later 4612199 Anonymous
>>4612188 >You should consider it a mental illness. It's something you just have feelings for, not because you want it, but because that's how you're coded. That's an extremely bad definition of mental illness. It just leaves the door open for society to determine, based on its moral conceptions, what is or is not mental illness. Which has happened with sexual preferences being deemed mental illnesses.

14 hours later 4612204 Anonymous
>>4612199 I put it wrong, I should've said "think of it as a mental illness." Not that it straight up is one.

14 hours later 4612208 Anonymous
I really wish people would stop using the word pedophile when they mean child molester. Nobody choices to be a pedophile and pedophiles deserve our pity, not our hatred.

15 hours later 4612247 Anonymous
I jacked off while reading it. That should tell you something.

15 hours later 4612283 Anonymous
>>4612199 But society is precisely what determines what is and isn't illness. Deviation is illness, meaning whatever deviates from society is illness. Ill people isn't necessarily evil.

15 hours later 4612297 Anonymous
>>4612283 Just follow your line of thinking to its logical conclusion and realise there is no such thing as mental illness. Insanity is as much a construct as morality.

15 hours later 4612302 Anonymous
>>4612297 Do you really believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong?

15 hours later 4612309 Anonymous
>>4612302 I believe the concepts exist specific to individuals

15 hours later 4612310 Anonymous (stirne.jpg 228x256 23kB)
>>4612283 >But society is precisely what determines what is and isn't illness. Society doesn't exist. >Deviation is illness No, suffering is illness. >>4612302 >no such thing as right and wrong? Of course not. They're both spooks.

19 hours later 4612697 Anonymous
>>4610160 >Is this book legitimately good? Yes, Nabokov is an excellent writer and Lolita is one of his best works.

10.203 0.154