# Why does Lolita mean child porn? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 2, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164 "2003-09-02T16:41:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Krisfer\_the\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Krisfer\_the\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Krisfer_the_Cat)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/121 "2003-09-05T00:35:24Z")
I was going to get all bent outta shape over **Anniee’s** throw away use of the word misogyny. I try to remember at times like this that it just ain’t worth the effort to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. Yeah, I am lookin at you missy. So this cat who is a Mommy Cat and NOT even remotely a misogynist but is willing to read things that challenge her to think is going to amble off toward the sunset… or refridgerator which ever comes first.😃 ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/122 "2003-09-05T00:54:42Z")
She does die in the end, in childbirth, IIRC - although its been about three years since the last timeI read it. I’ve read it twice. Once on my own and once as a selection for a feminist bookclub I’m in. No one in the bookclub found the book titilating. No one found it pornographic. No one found it misogynistic. We really found it disturbing - particularly the question of how innocent Lolita was in the seduction. Of course, my bookclub contains a number of women who were sexually active as minors with men over eighteen, so we find the whole “what we were responsible for - what they were responible for” discussion endlessly facinating. We found Humberts treatment of Lolita’s mother (Charlotte?) horrifying - more horrifying than his treatment of Lolita herself. And the lover that Lolita has after Humbert makes him seem like a prince. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/123 "2003-09-05T03:55:14Z")
> [@](#): > > **You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.** **Cervaise** : I don’t know about anyone else, but _I_ got your stealth reference to _The Princess Bride_. I’m going out to buy a copy of _Lolita_ tomorrow. I’ll bet **Anniee** has sold at least a dozen copies. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/124 "2003-09-05T04:00:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by commasense \* > \*\ ***Cervaise** : I don’t know about anyone else, but _I_ got your stealth reference to _The Princess Bride_. > \*\* So did I. As I read it, I heard Inigo’s Spanish accent. Was good for a chuckle. Thanks, **Cervaise**.😃 ---
**Author:** ![sjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@sjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjc)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/125 "2003-09-05T04:16:27Z")
Boy, this thread is interesting. I want to read _Lolita_ now. I doubt the discussion would have been as interesting had **Ainee** not set people off. I don’t quite understand what motivates her dislike of the book. I mean I kind of get what she’s driving at, but I’m not sure. I don’t really agree with her either (though since I haven’t read the book I’m on kind of shakey ground). I absolutely disagree that people who enjoyed a book that deals with pedophilia automatically must be pedophiles. Everyone who’s posted, as far as I can tell, finds Humbert Humbert’s actions despicable. A few people said that he wasn’t utterly despicable, but I don’t think that’s the same thing as an endorsement. I think that pornography is hard to define, but I also think that **MetalDog’s** posted definition is pretty good, i.e. sexually explicit work whose primary purpose is to tittilate. It sounds to me like the language is veiled enough that it can’t really be called explicit, but I don’t know. More important, to me, is the part about the _primary_ intent being to tittilate. Again, I have to trust the people who have read it, but it really doesn’t seem like the primary intent is to tittilate. I mean, many many people right here said that the message they got from the book was that Humbert was bad bad bad and more than a little weasley. But I shouldn’t be analyzing a book I haven’t read. What puzzles me is this: why is it wrong to read a book about bad things? As far as I can tell this is what **Ainee’s** gripe with _Lolita_ boils down to. I mean maybe she objects to this specific book about bad things, I could understand that. Perhaps the handling of the story offended her. Perhaps she percieves a glorification of Humbert’s actions. But it really bothers me that she speaks as if this invalidates the book for anyone else. What is the train of thought? Here is what I imagine (though I don’t presume to know anything about anyone’s thought processes, I am just trying to understand): this book depicts a 30(ish) man having sex with a 12 year old girl. This is wrong, it is in fact sick. Furthermore, the 30ish man is not made out to be evil, that’s even sicker. How could a person imagine, let alone write about such a thing? A man having sex with a 12 year old girl should NOT be contemplated, much less written about. (Maybe if it was clearly shown from the beginning just how bad he was, but I’m not so sure about that). The subject matter is SO bad that, regardless of any other literary merit the book might have, no good person could read it and enjoy it. Again I must stress that I am not implying this is what **Ainee** or anyone else actually thinks. And I also should say that I can understand this reasoning. The book sounds very disturbing and I can understand how one might not be able to fathom the people who got over their revulsion over what was being depicted in the book. I don’t think being able to read a book that deals with pedophilia (or any other really bad thing) and doesn’t draw strong and clear moral lessons is a bad thing. I don’t think you have to be aroused by that sort of thing to read about it (though if it doesn’t disturb you, I’m a little worried). I think it is clear that some books are not meant for everyone. It is perfectly fine with me if there are people who hate books that I like, I understand that tastes differ. It bothers me, though, when they say that I can’t possibly like that book, that that makes me wrong somehow. This really strikes a chord with me. It would be fine if someone said “I found that book pornographic, it was just bad. I don’t think you ought to bother to read it.” that would be true and I would appreciate the advice. ---
**Author:** ![flickerwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/13edae/32.png) [@flickerwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickerwolf)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/126 "2003-09-05T04:31:49Z")
Haha…I happened to be passing the library today, and remembering this thread, did a quick search for Lolita…all eight copies checked out. Coincidence? Either that or word really does get out quick. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/127 "2003-09-05T05:01:53Z")
> [@](#): > > It sounds to me like the language is veiled enough that it can’t really be called explicit, but I don’t know. […] Again, I have to trust the people who have read it, but it really doesn’t seem like the primary intent is to tittilate. As I say, I just started re-reading… there aren’t graphic depictions of sex, but even early on, Humbert says things about young girls that would creep out _anybody_. I’m actually recalling that the beginning was the most uncomfortable for me to read because he’s expounding on his “condition,” after the plot gets moving, it wasn’t as bad. ---
**Author:** ![MidnightRadio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecd19e/32.png) [@MidnightRadio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MidnightRadio)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/128 "2003-09-05T06:02:29Z")
**Anniee** , **KGS** ’ _fucking_ problem, the reason they mentioned your being an Anne Rice fan, was to point out what they saw as pretty blatant hypocrisy on your part. Not only are there are numerous instances in her books of adults having sexual relationships with minors, these relationships are rarely (if ever) portrayed in a negative light, are frequently prtrayed in a positive light, and are generally _far_ more graphic than anything in _Lolita_. For instance, in _Lasher_, Michael (a fortysomething-year-old man) and Mona (his thirteen-year-old _niece_, for Christ’s sake) have sex, not once, but twice. These couplings are descibed in explicit detail, as I recall. And as for the question of whether or not books – such as _Lolita_ – featuring adult/child sex are pornographic by definition, I dare anyone to tell me that they honestly think that the scene in which Michael and Mona first have sex wasn’t written – at least in part – with the intention of arousing the reader. Also, Anne Rice has never made much of a secret of her belief that adult/minor sex is not only acceptable (in consensual situations, of course), but should be encouraged. I wish I had a cite for this, but I don’t. When I was in high school, I read a magazine article on the computer in the library about it. I don’t think it was online; I think it was a collection of magazine and newspaper articles on a CD-ROM (this would have been in late 1994 or early 1995). The article was about how adult/child sex was portrayed in film and literature. I don’t remember much about it, except that it mentioned that in the novel _The Man Without a Face_, the character that Mel Gibson played in the movie had sex with the boy he was tutoring or whatever. It was also where I first heard of NAMBLA and I believe (although I could be dead wrong about this) Anne Rice also expressed support for that particular organization. If anyone can remember reading this article or can provide a cite, please speak up. Lastly, **Anniee** , although I don’t mean to harp and I know this has been said before, it is ludicrous to suggest that someone supports something as horrible as child sex abuse simply because they are able to read a book that depicts it (negatively, I should add) and look past it to see the worthiness of the story overall. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > **…oodles and oodles of child rape…** Band name! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/129 "2003-09-05T06:24:22Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by MidnightRadio_ > I don’t remember much about it, except that it mentioned that in the novel The Man Without a Face, the character that Mel Gibson played in the movie had sex with the boy he was tutoring or whatever. Spoilers for _Man without a Face_ IIRC, Gibson’s character was falsely accused by his emotionally disturbed student shortly before said student committed suicide. Later, he is caught in a compromising (although innocent) situation with his new student, and was charged again. I don’t believe his character was actually a pedophile, though. ---
**Author:** ![Grousser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9d8465/32.png) [@Grousser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grousser)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/130 "2003-09-05T06:36:13Z")
I think almost everything is said about the matter, but I still can give my little and humble contribution. I used to think that when we reach some level of maturity (as, say, what many people call criterion) one can stand any subject without being psycholically disturbed with it. Now I see it isn’t so. Personally, I, as everyone of you, don’t agree with pedophiles but I can understand there are some people who is and I comprehend they have some kind of sexual deviation, like bestialism or sadism. For me, a serial murderer is doing the same damage to the human race as a pedophile. Then, why depictions of pedophile acts tend to cause repulsion to people like **Anniee** and they don’t protest against so many movies and novels about murderers? They may give an easy answer: children are innocent beings. Yeah, murdered people too. They don’t deserve that fate, either. But we all can read or see depictions of murderers without being particularly affected and pointed as criminals because we enjoy those stories. Human behavior is so complex that we have to be very open-minded to understand that _it is_ and there’s nothing wrong in knowing it. So, **Anniee** ’s reaction is certainly a prejudice. It has been said so many times here, but it remains a strong argument… no, wait, not only a strong argument. It has been proved the _right argument_: enjoying a novel about child abuse doesn’t make you a child abuser. It would be very hard for the FBI trying to prosecute the awesome bunch of criminal cases, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![MetalDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@MetalDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MetalDog)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/131 "2003-09-05T07:32:45Z")
To be fair, I don’t /think/ **Anniee** ever said that enjoying _Lolita_ made anyone out to be a peadophile. What she said and what I object to, is that anyone who didn’t react to the protagonist with her personal depth of loathing was less moral than she is. Peadophilia is the new witchcraft. I can think of lots of areas of society where you’re ‘not allowed’ to discuss it with any kind of dispassion. The socially acceptable response to it, is to light yourself a torch, grab a pitchfork and storm the castle with a stake-burning in mind. If you accuse someone of it, it’s very difficult for them to ever wash that stain away, even if they’re innocent. I would suggest that the reason Anne Rice’s work doesn’t come in for **Anniee’s** wrath is that the adult/minor sex in those books isn’t clearly labelled for what it is and is given ‘validity’ by some of the ‘child’ characters being older than they physically appear - being vampires. That’s just a guess though, I only ever read _Interview with a vampire_ and dislike Anne Rice on the strength of her public antics, so I’m not massively familiar with the full body of her works. ---
**Author:** ![tavalla](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tavalla/32/89_2.png) [@tavalla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tavalla)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/132 "2003-09-05T11:11:10Z")
**MetalDog** , go back and read the post from **MidnightRadio** about Anne Rice’s _Lasher_. No vampires there… ---
**Author:** ![MetalDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecb155/32.png) [@MetalDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MetalDog)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/133 "2003-09-05T11:41:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tavalla \* > \*\ ***MetalDog** , go back and read the post from **MidnightRadio** about Anne Rice’s _Lasher_. No vampires there… \*\* Ah, just old-fashioned double standards and hypocrisy then. =) ---
**Author:** ![Martiju](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@Martiju](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martiju)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/134 "2003-09-05T12:07:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MidnightRadio \* > > [spoiler removed but names edited out \*\*] > > \*\*I dare anyone to tell me that they honestly think that the scene in which [**an adult and a child**] first have sex wasn’t written – at least in part – with the intention of arousing the reader. > > \*\* And in fact, there can be value in doing this as an author. Such a device might inspire feelings in the reader that make themselves feel uncomfortable: “this erotic description is turning me on, but errghhh it involves someone under the age of 16” (or 18, or 21…) :eek: In itself, this might help the reader to engage with the text and with any messages that are being portrayed. Just a thought. am now off to tie myself to a stake and wait for the torchbearers ---
**Author:** ![Tusculan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecd19e/32.png) [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/135 "2003-09-05T15:33:27Z")
Anyone else think we’re being fooled and **Annieee** is just a marketeer for the publisher of _Lolita_? Nothing to stir up the sales like a good controversy! Anyone wanna discuss the incest scenes in the Old Testament? ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/136 "2003-09-05T15:57:21Z")
Wow, there really is a NAMBLA? I’ve only heard of it on _South Park_. I kinda doubt that there is the other NAMBLA, though–the National Association for Marlon Brando Look-Alikes. ---
**Author:** ![Isabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5a626/32.png) [@Isabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/137 "2003-09-05T15:59:08Z")
Amy Fisher was dubbed “The Long Island Lolita” and that has nothing to do with porn. She is the one that shot Buttafucco in the head. She did serve time and got out. I wonder what she is doing for a living? How do you even get a job after that? ---
**Author:** ![Isabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5a626/32.png) [@Isabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isabelle)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/138 "2003-09-05T16:06:32Z")
Amy Fisher was dubbed “The Long Island Lolita” and that has nothing to do with porn. She is the one that shot Buttafucco in the head. She did serve time and got out. I wonder what she is doing for a living? How do you even get a job after that? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/139 "2003-09-05T16:32:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Isabelle \* > \*\*Amy Fisher was dubbed “The Long Island Lolita” and that has nothing to do with porn. I wonder what she is doing for a living? \*\* [Newspaper columnist](http://www.islandear.com/current/columns_fisher.asp). ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164/140 "2003-09-05T20:09:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Isabelle \* > **She is the one that shot Buttafucco in the head.** She shot _Mrs._ Buttafuoco (boot-uh-FWAH-co). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-lolita-mean-child-porn/199164.md?page=8)