wtf! Lolita is sooo slu++y.
-
TheMadHattress — 15 years ago(October 16, 2010 06:06 PM)
I agree Talent_for_love that as the novel projects Humbert's perspective, he perceives Lolita as being more than what she is. She is not Deloras but LOLITA, his fantasy object, the embodiment of all of his nymphet desire. Also before life sexualises human beings, children are liberated beings who are quite free emotionally, mentally and physically. They run around naked, they flirt (yep kids flirt!), they play, they sit how they want. It's not 'sluttiness' - its just being at an age when you are completely unaware of the sexuality of your body and the consequences of that sexuality. The great thing here is the ambiguity between Delores as she was and Lolita from Humbert's opinion and also the difference between Lolly the child and Lolly as a sexual being. Clearly later on she begins to realise that her sexuality holds a power over Humbert (he gives her money and presents) - she then learns to manipulate him.
-
Thought_Criminal_J62377 — 11 years ago(December 20, 2014 11:28 PM)
His fantasy object, geniuses, wouldn't put him through so much, string him along and knowingly put daggers in his heart at every turn. I totally disagree that the way she acted was his fantasy. If she had any kind of character she wouldn't have flirted and tried to make him jealous every chance she got. She led him on, and though what he did was wrong, it doesn't make her devoid of guilt. She knew exactly what she was doing and the power she wielded. She was identical to an adult woman of "low morals." She enjoyed the power she had over him and exploited it masterfully. The truth is, females like her are the stuff of men's nightmares. She is the fabled "devil spawn" that leads men down the path of destruction
I see Stupid People -
hopless_dreamer — 15 years ago(October 20, 2010 05:56 PM)
So you're saying that because a young girl or an adult female in general spreads her legs while sitting that she deserves to be taken advantage of and sexually assaulted? You're one of those people who think that women are "asking for it" because they wear a shorter skirt or a tighter top aren't you? You're pretty much justifying the abusers actions which is terrible.
-
A_Skywalker — 12 years ago(October 13, 2013 11:17 AM)
Noone is justifying the abusers. Abusers are abusers and their place is in jail. But you are one of the women that thinks its perfectly fine women trying to provoke men by wearing short skirts and showing boobs and ass. No, that is not right, that parts are for the eyes of your boyfriend. Not for everyone. It is provocative and girls are doing it because they want attention. For me its bad to get attention this way. If a woman wants to be respected she can find other ways and be respected for what she is, not for her body.
-
gab_bonny — 12 years ago(October 25, 2013 05:16 PM)
" But you are one of the women that thinks its perfectly fine women trying to provoke men by wearing short skirts and showing boobs and ass."
you mean one of the women who believe we are not mens property? The ones who believe we can dress however the hell we want and not be subject to abuse? right. -
brock22 — 14 years ago(June 04, 2011 03:56 AM)
/I think alot of that behaviour is meant to constantly remind the viewer how young she is, meaning she is not a lady but a child
Yes. Her immature behaviour is a motif in this film: it emphasizes the point that he's in love with a child. She's not in love with him, she's just experimenting with her sexuality as teenagers do, and she still has a lot to learn about what she wants in regards to love. He thinks he has finally rediscovered his soul mate in this girl which he lost when he was 14, but it's just an illusion. -
dolores_medina — 14 years ago(May 12, 2011 12:07 AM)
"She is a child and Humbert states in the book that she showed alot of leg; she was quite unashamedly unladylike. Get over it - she was a bouncy 12 year old precocious tomboy. "
QFT no child deserves to be raped regardless of How Much leg they show. that is saying an adult male has zero control if any part of a woman's anatomy shows. That is saying that women bare the onus of making sure all men behave by covering up every square inch of skin, and wearing baggy clothes,..
Sharia law anyone? -
LauraCohle — 14 years ago(May 12, 2011 05:33 PM)
What the beep are you talking about?! I'm not saying she deserved to be raped for showing alot of leg!
Get off your high horse, mate. All I was saying is that she was a young girl who, like all young girls, don't have any sexuality in mind when they are wearing little clothing. I said nothing about being raped, ya wanker.