Why is Lolita romanticized/popular by teenage girls/young adult women?
Sources: Tumblr, Lana del Rey lyrics
Women are deranged.
>>7751736
Cause they wanna get fucked
>>7751739
Well the author is male, let's not forget.
#grunge
>>7751742
The author also depicted Humbert as a monster, he didn't romanticize him.
>>7751748
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, but regardless: wouldn't you agree both Adrian Lyne and Stanley Kubrick romanticized the story in their movie adaptions? (my point being both are men).
>>7751762
I haven't seen Lyne's film, but I have seen Kubrick's and if I remember right Delores is 14 instead of 12, making it more acceptable to romanticize their relationship, as well as making the tale easier to swallow for a wider audience.
>>7751779
>more acceptable to romanticize their relationship, as well as making the tale easier to swallow for a wider audience
Yeah but that destorys the whole point of Nabokovs book, no? If he now intended to make the story about a bad man.
>>7751783
The films are different than the book.
I feel there's a huge difference between a man wanting to fug a 12 year old and a man wanting to fug a 14 year old.
The films are more romanticized, but the tale is changed around to make it less controversial.
Nabokov's original work is about a very deranged man.
I'm not saying men aren't deranged, they are, but in a very different manner than women.
>>7751762
>I wouldn't necessarily agree with that
wut
>>7751779
>>7751783
The movie adaptations removed the possibility of an unreliable narrator, which Humbert most certainly was, and might possibly be the ultimate example of, along with the butler in The Remains of the Day.
That sort of nuance tends to be lost on all but the most /lit/ of females.
This book gave me some uncomfortable boners.
>>7751821
Have you read de Sade?
>>7751748
Humbert H is the narrator and its easy to sympathize with him if you aren't being skeptical
daddy issues, clearly
>>7751748
But love was romanticized especially at beginning and proto-dolores
>>7751736
Because the teenage girls and young women who really love Tumblr usually have daddy issues.
>>7751736
Lots of girls have a "daddy fetish" and they want an older/fatherlike man to give them "cummies."
>>7751883
they have penis issues instead i think
>>7751883
Fuck off you apologist dipshit. If some young girl on Tumblr is calling herself "nymphet" and romanticizing Humbert's relationship then it isn't "worn-out" to suggest daddy issues.
People don't need to stop saying things just because you're tired of hearing them, snowflake.
>>7751904
You seem upset, friend.
Why are you so upset?
>>7751910
Because it absolutely stands to reason and you're trying to pass it off like it doesn't.
>>7751912
But I've not even commented on YOUR point.
My point is that it's a worn out term and need to be considered for men as well. Do you disagree with THAT?
>>7751916
Of course it does you idiot. I'd let her call me daddy in a heartbeat and I'd love every second of it, but that is beside the point. You threw men weirdly into it like you can't have a woman get criticized about daddy issues without men going unchecked too. Are you a femanon?
Because leftists are masochists, they enjoy being used, degraded, humiliated, and beaten.
>>7751922
>You threw men weirdly into it like you can't have a woman get criticized about daddy issues without men going unchecked too.
And why shouldn't they?
>Are you a femanon?
Does it matter?
>>7751930
And right wingers are, judging by /pol/ or /r9k/, extremely into cuckolding.
>>7751932
>And why shouldn't they?
This girl is literally building a social identity around this kink. She is on another level.
Sorry if the truth triggers you.
>>7751943
But I don't have this kink.
And I don't follow you at all: you're saying I 1) have a daddy fetish/daddy issues 2) form a social identify from it BECAUSE 3) I think men can have daddy issues as well? This isn't even logically coherent.
What are you trying to say?
>>7751930
>lana del rey
>leftist
you guys really have lost your mind over this shit havent you
>>7751961
All I have been trying to do is stick to the topic at hand and that is something that is seemingly impossible to you. You really are a femanon.
You jumped into this thread with a political agenda. Like somehow a mark against one woman for having this kink is a mark against "your team", so you need to turn it into some giant thing now. Just fuck off already you bore.
>>7751983
>You jumped into this thread
...I'm OP, you know.
>>7751992
Being OP doesn't somehow absolve you of that tired bullshit you just pulled.
>>7752000
All that bullshit? You're so upset.
I've made one point: men can have daddy issues too.
Why does this upset you so? Do you have daddy issues? Do you want to talk about it, anon?
>ITT: wild unfounded speculation
>>7752003
>Why does this upset you so?
The topic itself doesn't upset me. I freely admitted that I wouldn't mind playing around with it myself.
You are a pedant and a bore. That is the upsetting thing here.
>>7751909
Your life is a meme.
>>7752060
But you could have just simply decided not to reply to me, so if this discussion is boring you - you're really the one to blame, you enabled it.
>>7751841
he gives me comfy boners
>>7752072
Angrily attacking people anonymously on 4chan is a meme attitude within itself but you are too triggered to even see it. Get a clue.
Infantalizing themselves, regressing to childhood to escape responsibility. Being dominated by a dad type. Being so alluring that men are willing to totally fuck up their life to run away with you.
A combination of all three of these fucked up ideas.
>>7751736
Abandonment issues
>tfw moving to the states
>tfw can no longer date 16 year olds
NO
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>7751783
Nabokov wasn't a moralist at all. Read his lectures. All he cared about was aesthetics.
>>7752443
>4chan men
>post memes all day long, live with their moms, watch anime and talk about waifus or pink ponies all day long
>cuckolding fantasies
>being so nice girls are willing to stay virgins for you and bf you
Is it just our generation?
>>7751741
/thread
I think it's just being a pseudo intellectual, not a sexual thing. You see the same stuff with The Great Gatsby on tumblr. Not to say it's a bad novel, but it's incredibly entry level.
I remember Lolita blowing my mind as it was one of the first serious literary books I read, certainly the first with the level prose. I imagine they feel the same way.
>>7752473
Nah I think it has more to do about Lolita and Gatsby both being too very aesthetic books
Tumblr is all about aesthetics
>>7752473
just because it's readable doesn't mean it's entry level faggot
>>7752467
Nah, there have always been losers, it's a faulty perception to say it's generational.
>>7751883
Men have mommy issues
Jesus Christ how can you be so dense?Have you literally never talked with people?
>>7752482
Would you really call these girls losers though? They have social lives, bfs, have sex, etc.
Alright OP, here's some shit you should have realize by now:
1 - Saying some of these girls have daddy issues doesn't imply YOU have these as well
2 - Saying these girls have daddy issues doesn't imply men can't have daddy (or mommy) issues, it's just answering the question you posed
3 - Everyone here realizes we're a bunch of shitposting menchildren as well, but you asked about those lolita-obsessing girls and you got your answer.
Honestly, look at the question you posed, do you REALLY think there is an answer that wouldn't offend you? It just seems like you did this to raise a rucks tbqhf@m
>>7752480
aestheticist, you retard. Also, Gatsby isn't "aesthetical", it's just purple
>>7752484
Men can certainly have daddy issues too
didnt you see the new Star Wars
>>7752486
Is that basic shit really your idea of winning?
Shit-mouthed peasants in Africa have those exact same things.
>>7752489
Yeah but the analogue for daddy issues in women for men is mommy issues
>>7752481
I didn't mean that as an insult. But it totally is. You want to get into serious literature, you find a "greatest books" list, it's relatively short, it's about an edgy subject matter, you read and your mind gets blown. It's eally only a tier above Orwell or Hemingway or Fitzgerald in when most people read it in their reading.
That's what everything in my experience indicates anyway. Could he different for others.
>>7751883
no, no. most men have issues with their mother and most women have issues with their father, and they seek to resolve the childhood conflict with their opposite sex parent through the eroticization of the opposite-sex relationship.
do you know nothing of Freud?
jeez.
I do agree that it is a worn-out cliché that means almost nothing meaningful in day-to-day life.
>>7752496
Eh, not really. If either a boy or girl has a problem with their mom or day, its simply called dad/mom issues.
>>7752487
purple prose looks awfully like 'aesthetic' prose to the uneducated.
>>7751736
Because they try to be quirky and unique but really they are fucking stupid and probably wouldn't even to get through or understand a meme book like 1984.
>>7752502
when a dude has mom issues it turns him into a fuckin fag, when a chick has dad issues shes a fucking slut, its totally different
>>7752487
1 I'm quite aware, it was an anon earlier who said I had this kink, which is why and when I corrected him.
2 Look back to the actual posts. I was talking about the term in itself and how it's used. It's almost only ever used for girls, and I simply pointed that out (because, as you too are saying now: men have daddy issues too).
3 I'm not complaining, I'm replying to people's posts, fueling a discussion, asking questions.That's typically how social interaction goes.
>>7752512
No, father issues for a male is what causes homoeroticization to occur.
>>7752510
Man, I really don't want to get into this discussion again, neither here nor anywhere, but I love Wilde, Huysmans and I have always been a sucker for romanticism.
But Fitzgerald is just tacky.
>>7752496
Wild hypothesis but maybe both men and women can have issues with either parent.
>>7752512
When a dude has dad issues he can turn into a super fag or an overcompensating "macho"
When a girl has mom issues she becomes a battleaxe or a slut
But the big point is, both males and females can have them both
>>7752515
ya maybe if ur dad fucked ur ass or sth, but assuming ur dads not a flaming pedo, its when a dude is too close to his mom he doesn't have to seek a woman for companionship just sex and eventually realizes he can just get the sex from a manhole
>>7752523
it comes from the opposite gender u god damn moron no wonder u dudes are all angsty betas, get some self awareness and life experience
>>7752531
Even an ounce life experience would inform you that either sex can have the issues.
But you're probably baiting since you type like a retard.
>>7752536
>baiting me by saying "sex" when we discussing gender
uneducated trash or entry level ruse intern? u decide!
Straight up
>>7752547
>>7751894
>"cummies."
This word made me a little hard to be honest, family
>>7752465
He didn't care about morals, but Humbert was clearly supposed to come off as pretentious, unhinged, and sleazy. It's part of his character.
http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4310/the-art-of-fiction-no-40-vladimir-nabokov
>INTERVIEWER
>He does [names him]. A third critic has said that you “diminish” your characters “to the point where they become ciphers in a cosmic farce.” I disagree; Humbert, while comic, retains a touching and insistent quality—that of the spoiled artist.
>NABOKOV
>I would put it differently: Humbert Humbert is a vain and cruel wretch who manages to appear “touching.” That epithet, in its true, tear-iridized sense, can only apply to my poor little girl. Besides, how can I “diminish” to the level of ciphers, et cetera, characters that I have invented myself? One can “diminish” a biographee, but not an eidolon.
>>7752500
I'd argue that the "issues" females have with their fathers ends up being sexual. The "issues" males have with their mothers stems from the protector role. Men calling their significant other "mommy" in bed isn't quite as normal as a female calling out for her daddy.
Different biological mechanisms, I guess.
>>7751736
women want as many orbiters as possible, in order to have the most voluptuous life.
men accept to serve women, because women gratify men who (attempt to) satisfy them and men know thus that they made something of their life.
>>7752855
Do you mean we want to protect our mothers or we want to be protected from our mothers?
>>7752998
Both. Those who want to protect their mothers are the ones with richer, more successful lives.
Those who want to be protected by their mothers are the ones who have the unhealthy mommy issues.
The healthiest thing would be if you were protected from birth to 14, learned independence from 15-18, lived your life from 18-45, and then protected your mother later in life. This would give you the best shot at not having any mommy issues, because if you abandon her completely, those are mommy issues.
Back when I used to have Tumblr I used to get followed by a lot of these blogs (unfortunately).
A majority of them had never read the book, merely quote them. The whole 'nymph' subculture is based around the 90s Lolita film as well as others I can't currently remember the names of (although I could if someone is interested). The aim is to look both seductive and 'daisy fresh' - the embodiment of the 90s Lolita film. I can imagine that many of them prefer older men and quite a few I saw have fetishes that relate to age play.
Daddy issues is more widely used on women because lack of a father changes how women interact with future partners, and people are statistically more likely to grow up without a father than a mother (due to suicide, work place death, primary custody going to mothers in most cases, parental alienation more common against fathers).
That's not to say men aren't affected by lack of a father, but it doesn't present sexually or romantically. It usually influences the self (I.e. how one thinks of oneself, mental health). Usually it's alcoholism, depression, greater risk of suicide, and lack of confidence. This is true for men and women but girls have the added lack of romantic role model (does not have example for how healthy relationships with men should look like, while men don't have a healthy model for how to BE a man).
The same is true (in regards to difficulty with relationships later in life) for abusive or otherwise unhealthy (relationship wise) parents.
And likewise can be mitigated with a good replacement role model (someone of the missing sex who is consistently in the child's life, I.e. grandparent, male teacher. Or same sex couple as parents one usually takes on a more masculine role).
Because women are at a much lower risk of parental alienation, suicide, early death, and loss of primary custody (in the US) children are much less likely to grow up without a father, as opposed to without a mother.
Because of the unique effect of growing up without a father on women (lack of role model for partners, no example of healthy relationships, increased risk of loss of virginity at younger age and promiscuity) the term is primarily used on women, and a lower rate of "mommy issues" is used for men.
>>7753570
>(in the US) children are much less likely to grow up without a father, as opposed to without a mother.
That should be more likely, not less likely
>>7752481
Just because it's entry level it doesn't mean it's bad.
>>7753627
>negging
holy fuck
>>7753570
Note that it can present itself sexually, or that's the argument that Father John Harvey OSFS makes in Same Sex Attraction: Catholic Teaching and Pastoral Practice, as the role of becoming-man is shifted onto male friendship which is eventually homoeroticized.
That top is just Nabakov admitting that he's going to be showing off his fancy prose, and blaming it on a character he created to show off his fancy prose.
I was a shy, beta, unassertive guy throughout my teens, saw the girls I liked as these sweet individuals who I could live a sort of John Hughes-esque romantic life with. Of course I never dated any of them because I was so weirdly intimidated by the potential I had allowed them, and even the ones who did have crushes on me I sort of kept at a distance and admired without making a move. I guess I sort of saw sex and stuff like that as pretty undesirable in person and preferred my mental image of young love (TM) than I did the real thing when confronted with the option of experiencing it.
This mentality pretty stupidly developed into the sort of vague revulsion towards women that was really just frustration and anger at myself channeled towards other people. I mean I'd never even told a girl I liked her or made any effort on that front, so it only took a little self-awareness to see how weird I was being. Despite the fact I'd started reading a lot and noticed how a bunch of writers, not only Schopenhauer et al., sort of patronized women or casually dismissed their perceived value.
But then in college one time I approached a girl who had been looking at me in a way I just knew was evidence of her being interested in me and asked her pretty bluntly if she wanted to go out sometime. She said sure but when I saw her eyes up close for the first time I could tell she was an enthusiastic, energetic, "live for the moment" kind of person. I mean she was educated and conducted herself in a somewhat refined manner, but still. I ended up pretty much doing everything my John Hughes instincts told me not to (acted coldly towards her, lied, belittled her etc) and we ended fucking a lot. I only had sex with her twice before she started licking my ass, asking me to choke her. In the shower she asked me to piss on her and I could tell that she enjoyed being viewed as this pathetic, pitiful thing for me to us. Privately I found it pretty embarrassing for her and felt bad for her a little, but again little John Hughes hid his tears and I pretty much used her and got bored. For whatever reason this act I kept up led me to fucking other girls, most of whom told me they loved me after a couple of weeks, all of whom asked me to choke them and licked my asshole. I realized what guys on 4chan meant when they said they were bored of women, and why women were so afraid that guys were just "using" them, I mean these girls enjoyed getting used and got off on it. They were surprised when this didn't materialize into a loving relationship, which led me once to just laugh in a girl's face as she sobbed and acted ll confused as to why I didn't see her as someone whose existence I could cherish. A lot of these girls then went on to date cute, quiet John Hugheses and then I passed them on campus they gave me a look which communicated both that I should not embarrass her boyfriend by speaking to her but that I had her number and if I wanted her she was mine.
Just my experience.
>>7753744
this is why I monkmode
>>7753775
Unless you go full monk you will ALWAYS feel depressed due to the lack of romantic intimacy in your life.
>>7753780
False.
>>7753785
Demonstrably true.
>>7753792
idk bro, people who always feel the need to cling to others have bigger shit going on. Romance and sex is just a common filter for those same emotional patterns.
IMO if you cant handle being alone you probably wont have very good relations with others anyway, you'll inevitably pollute things with the needy/insecure bullshit.
There's being alone and there's living without any female tenderness and intimacy. There's the inevitable point where you are just too far gone for your self-imposed asceticism to be cool or a sign that you are part of some super contemporary trend in youth culture. Your body tells you to fuck, your culture tells you a million times a day that love is the reason your existence is valuable. To deny these things is to be totally without self-awareness or sensitivity. There's a reason actual monks go out of their way to live in some rural area where no women appear and where there is zero means of being confronted by social messages. They live lives equivalent to those of children pretty much, routine, narrow-minded (i.e. forcefully reading the same texts and considering nothing else), sexless and at the mercy of their state (the alcohol and other shit they make would not allow them to pay rent, tax, utilities, upkeep etc were the state not forgiving of their autism). If you live the life of a monk in a city or any sort of social environment you will end up like Simon & Garfunkel's "Most Peculiar Man"
>>7753803
lol its not really my business to do what everyone else is doing.
I go out and socialize, make friends, etc. as a matter of practicality, I need the skills. But I'm not expecting anything from them nor do I have them expect anything of me, male or female.
And I'll be really frank, running off on your sexual instincts betrays a stronger lack of self-awareness than otherwise. Why do you think all you ever met were a bunch of silly broads who needed to get slapped around to feel good?
>>7753803
only the pleb lives through fucking the few women who acknowledge them..
but hey, feel free to choose to spend your day satifying women, in bed or not.
>>7753809
>>7753807
I can literally smell your cum-stained undies through my twin-monitor set up you fucking faggots. How many girls can you phone up right now and have sex with later on today? And I'm talking college-educated, career-obtaining women. Not the type of schizoids you guys no doubt long for over the internet. See kiddos, this is what separates the men from the boys. The chafe from the wheat. The Ubermensch from the Uber-stench of a dusty, uncleaned, cluttered NEET dungeon. To master women you need to assert yourself on life, force it to yield to your desires, and in turn the world will respect you, men will see you as someone to emulate and support. People acknowledge a strong will when they see on. Just by reading this post I know that you can tell that I am somebody you would like to be, however much you deny it and interpret your isolation and "studiousness" as evidence of a superior mode of living. I mean it's pitiful, really. Tonight I am going to have a half-Russian girl who just graduated from Bennington come over and make me food and beg me to spit on her. What are you going to do tonight, huh? Jerk off again? Read 50 pages of some book that you really aren't enjoying all that much? Please. It's time for you to grow up kid. Confront the real world after all these years of observing life and thinking you have spotted something nobody else has. I can jut picture your pale, weak bodies right now. I can see you (yes, you) hunched over your little desk with you empty cartons and bunched up tissues and a book you're using as a coaster right now because the idea of reading any more is just so discomforting, especially considering that every page you read involves being distracted for a few seconds by some girl you're too cowardly to approach or some experience you wish you were having instead of sitting like mommy's good little angel reading his little stories. Anyway, I have to go hit the gym and catch up with some buddies. We'll probably eat some lunch, talk about our careers, joke around, talk shit about each other without being offended and resentful about it. Then, as I said, it's Sunday so that means Tatiana is coming over to pretty much worship what is essentially the finest representative of masculinity she has ever and will ever lay her little Moscovian eyes on. Later, kiddo.
>>7751736
I know a girl in my screenwriting group who has written a script focusing on a girl getting her rocks off with an older man who plays as her "daddy" and she says Lolita is one of my favourite books and that everyone on Tumblr loves it.
It's a great book, sure, but I don't understand why girls go crazy for it. I assume they see it as some sort of erotic novel that they can get their rocks off on.
>>7753829
I'm actually sad this isnt a pasta because this means you really are an insecure dickhead.
>>7753829
Resorting to cliched namecalling has no effect on the contemporary NEET. We are economic auto-didacts, self-taught philosophers and gifted visionaries. While others waste their life labouring under the orders of those who see only material cost in life, we pursue leisure above all else, knowing as we do that leisure and time to oneself is the basis of genius. Despite many people disliking the culture and society they help maintain through their work, and despite understanding now that we have only a single life on earth and that any meaning we attribute to it as the result of self-willed or socially-inculcated ideologies, they continue to wake early and trudge to their jobs for one single reason: Guilt. Throughout time religions have taken advantage of Man's guilt, a guilt experienced for no logical reason except that he unlike other animals is a self-aware being whose abstract thoughts conflict with the apparently practical, rational reality he finds himself a part of. We post-guilt NEETs will not bow to internal or external pressures encouraging us to sacrifice our contentment and sensitive dispositions for the sake of attaining money, or womenfolk. We alone stand proudly, detached from but keenly observant of the slave masses who yell at us for not being as unhappy as they are. We alone, we band of true men, defend our right to live a dignified life against those wishing to deprive of us of it. Yes you can mock, you can criticize, you can echo the demands your masters make upon you. But who is likely to regret their lives more? The noble and dignified NEETs who spend their truly precious time reading, pondering, philosophizing and engaging in critical, urgent debate online? Or the miserable, resentful masses, their eyes bloated and sagged by excess folds of skin, their hair falling out and their gums bleeding from stress, their bowels destroyed by a sedentary lifestyle spent at their desks clicking endlessly while their boss breaths down their necks?
>>7753829
you choose to master women, because you cannot master anything else, not even you.
go back eating pussy, good little boy.
>>7753829
>tfw i can't help but feel turned on by guys who talk like this
goddamit biology!
>>7753834
This is 2016. We are the future.
>>7753851
https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/3lpp1d/neet_rethoric/
>>7753829
this should be pasta actually. it's quite good. 8/10.
on the other hand, though, you're a hedonistic freak, obsessed with worldly and secular matters, pleasures and vain desires of the flesh. you're a disgrace.
>>7753876
*your
>>7753915
Pretty good anon 10/10
>>7752855
>Men calling their significant other "mommy" in bed isn't quite as normal as a female calling out for her daddy.
>>7753627
This is in large part bad advice. I'm not even that unattractive of a guy but I fell into this bad habit because of posters like this and it's just that, a bad habit. Maybe do it a little, but very sparingly.
Women are more complicated than posters like this make them out to be. If you can't play them by ear, you can't play them at all. Disregard most PUA-type "advice".
>>7753968
T b h why would you even want a girl that falls for that stupid meme shit
>>7753968
You know you're not any better than them, don't you? You are as dependent on your genitals for your self-worth as those women are.
>>7753989
... because she's hot and intercourse with her would give me orgasms?
>>7751744
>>7754004
>dave grohl
>>7754023
Its like watching someone willingly rub themselves with shit
>>7752080
This is why femanons shouldn't be allowed
>>7753744
You can read someone's mind by looking into their eyes
>>7754035
How is she in the wrong? It takes two to tango.
>>7753705
Can you really call it that fancy? Sure he uses some fancy words as Humbert and slips in some French on occasion, but any book that has the construction "had had" in it, more than once even, can't be said to be all that fancy.
>>>>7752500
I know that Freud is an outdated hack who isn't taken seriously in modern psychology. Read some research papers or review articles on psychology, not senseless dribble made for rich dullards in 1900s
Humbert Humbert did nothing wrong to be honest
>>7754548
The word is drivel
Some of Freud's writings make a vague sort of sense, but most of it is bullshit. He did most of it to show off anyway.
>>7754565
Thank you. I will take note of that.
Love this Freud is worthless because can't be proven meme. Going strong for decades.
>>7754574
Philosophy can't be proven and I like that fine
To me, Freud is worthless because he tried to make his ideas seem like objective reality when they were very obviously not.
>>7751850
Easy to sympathize with him?
He's a predator, attempting to place blame on young females for 'intentionally enticing' him.
Let's not forget that young individuals lack foresight.
...
>>7753989
It's all memes. Authentic relationships with women are impossible. Give up your identity or give up women. They demand compliance.
the oedipus complex, that's why
>>7755160
correction* the electra complex
>>7755160
It's called Elektra-complex
>>7755160
It's actually Elektra-complexholy shit the second guy who posted this should kill themselves.
>>7751850
>easy to sympathize
>sets up a telescope on an elementary school
>makes lolita suck his dick in class
>marries a widow JUST to fuck a little girl
>runs red lights
Humbert is a monster
>>7755160
reverse oedipus complex
poor electra did literally nothing wrong in her play
>>7751736
Honestly, I think that most audiences have related to it on that level, whether Nabokov wrote it like that or not.
>>7752453
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States
There are plenty of opportunities.
>age of consent 16 (30–31): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,[a] Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia
>>7754023
if you just want sex buy a whore fagtron
>>7754535
that's completely innocuous
>>7753807
>Why do you think all you ever met were a bunch of silly broads who needed to get slapped around to feel good?
the "not all women are the same" meme is my favorite meme
protip: there is only one type of women my man. they're all the "need to get slapped around to feel good" type. the more you interact with women the more apparent this will become to you
>>7755441
pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
>>7755444
>my gf is an intellectual who reads books and isn't like all the other girls lol
>>7751736
Young people are stupid and self-destructive.
Lolita is to women as Fight Club is to men.
>>7755462
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpelSFTFkHc
>>7755463
/thread
basically because the other girls do it. they like the general aesthetic of the clothing, etc
lana del rey is slightly different and born to die isn't very representative of her as an artist
>>7755509
were you expecting me to sit through that garbage
>>7755463
Women really do have better taste than men.
Sorry boys.
It's just a savage misinterpretation of Lolita. It's not just women that do this either. A lot of people really have no comprehension of what an unreliable narrator is. They read the book and believe Humbert's rationalizations. They see his ludicrous comparison with Quilty and actually believe Humbert's "love" is real. Ideally, you're supposed to contrast all those little snippets of Lolita's mental state with his protestations of love and understand he's full of shit.
>>7751800
he was not unreliable narrator maymay, what he describes is what he felt. his direct experience.
>I want to marry then kill her mum so I can fuck her and it'll be all normal from the outside because i'll be her adoptive father
>unreliable narration
wut?
the author was deluding himself. not the audience. compare this to the sad sack of shit in catcher in the rye who knows he's a pathetic shit yet attempts to present himself as this suave ladies man quite transparently.
>>7757169
Humbert constantly tries to obfuscate the fact he's a monster. Just because he lies to himself, doesn't mean he isn't trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
>compare this to the sad sack of shit in lolita who knows he's a rapist and child molester yet attempts to present himself as this misunderstood romantic
>>7757190
he is convincing himself of this, not the reader.
the difference is like that of a psych patient convincing themselves that they have ADD to absolve responsibility for being a meth head as compared to a patient admittedly being a meth head and trying to score amphetamines from a psychiatrist.
>>7757214
>I'm literally so stupid I can't even see the breadcrumbs Nabokov put in front of me.
Humbert is constantly trying to win you over throughout the novel by lying to you and appealing to your intellect (recall, dear reader, all the times he addresses you directly). He is also insane, which would make him unreliable as a narrator in itself.
