First ever movie about a pedophile?
Just wondering, I know this was a groundbreaker of a movie in many respects. Did any movie before this have any references to pedophilia? Maybe some European or underground movie?
shareTechnically, it´s not about pedophilia cuz Lolita wasn´t physiologically a child.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
What? In what universe do you exist? In the book she is 12. In the 1962 movie, the actress is 14. I've got news for you. That's a CHILD.
shareI exist in a world where you haven´t bothered to familiarize yourself about the topic you´re aggressively debating here. These kinds of things are very specifically defined you know - namely, pedophilia commonly means sex with a "child", and "child" means a pre-teen. Sue Lyon was clearly a teenager, not a pre-teen, ie physiologically a young woman. Hence it´s not pedophilia.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Franzkabuki:
I hope you're not saying that an adult having sex with a minor is okay to engage in and not psychologically damaging, therefore, okay?
I hope you were never sexually abused as a child or adolescent so that what you said in your post wouldn't have been said.
It makes no difference that Sue Lyon played Lolita as a 14 year old. Humbert having sex with his 14 year old stepdaughter is pedophilic and incestuous.
Have you or would you engage in sex with an under-18 girl?
What should be well evident without further inquiry, is that I´m saying sex with a 14-year old is not defined as "pedophilic". But of course facts for you "make no difference", so I´m obviously wasting my time even replying here. And 18 as a cut-off age is entirely arbitrary as evidenced by the fact that in many countries it is indeed lower than that.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Yo! Frank Bazooka just go out and have sex with a 14 year old and see what happens to you.
shareIs this the most idiotic way you could think of to reply or is there some hidden potential left? Apparently, there´s some nitwit convention going on on this board that I got mixed up in...
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I don't know where you're from, but in my country, having sex with a 14-year-old would make you a pedophile, both legally and morally. Semantics aside, 14-year-old girls are still basically children, much too immature and underdeveloped to be fair game for middle-aged creeps.
I do think that changing her age from 12 to 14 reduces the impact somewhat, but I still consider Humbert to be a pedophile. After all, it was conceived as a story about pedophilia, whether you like it or not .
Defining pedophilia has got nothing to do with any laws or morality (and even less with what anyone might privately "consider") and everything to do with physiology - and the vast majority of 14-year olds are not children. Whether or not they´re psychologically mature enough to sleep with middle-aged men, is a different topic altogether.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
On a Psychological basis, a pedophile is characterized as being attracted to a prepubescent child, OR a child 13 years or younger.
You can decide that 14 years to be a child, but physiologically, age doesn't define your childhood as much as puberty does.
Also, what country do you live in? In the US, the American Psychology Association has in fact defined pedophilia as sexual feelings for 13 OR YOUNGER. Read the DSM-IV to see for yourself.
Those who argue a 14 year old is a child is purely on a sociological basis, NOT physiological. Does this mean Humbert having sex with a 14 year old is morally alright? Absolutely not, but that doesn't automatically make it pedophilia.
My Novel: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/emo-alan-dj/1107079914?ean=29400328262 93
Thanks for setting the record straight in all regards there. It´s basically more or less what I´ve been arguing - and for that trouble I got issued a threat of lethal violence by that guy Ryder or whatever (I did not, at any point, indicate that Humbert´s actions were to be regarded as morally acceptable, even though I did not specifically spell it out; I mean - Humbert´s behaviour being abnormal/pathological and the resulting feelings of guilt and paranoia are the defining emotional/ethical underspinnings for him and Lolita and the entire story. Should sort of go without saying).
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
It wasn't a real threat. I honestly thought I was being funny. I was drunk and made a mistake. I subsequently tried to apologise, both in this thread and via PM, but you had already put me on ignore (as well as called me a psychopath and a dimwit), which was most unfortunate. You would have found me a lot more reasonable than that post indicated.
I also knew exactly what you were saying all along. I simply had an issue with what I regarded as unjustified arrogance and condescension on your part. When it comes down to it, I really can't argue against your point. Strict definition of pedophilia does refer solely to pre-pubescent girls.
Anyway, I'm truly sorry for attacking you like that, weird joke or not. I was way out of line.
Okay then. I guess my command of tone isn´t always impeccable, either - I do have a tendency of getting annoyed with unexamined hyperbole and shrill extremist attitudes one too often encounters hereabouts. The ignore thing was kinda silly of me, too, especially considering I usually find your posts interesting and eloquent and all that. Just thought that picking up the conversation anew might lead to some of those angry, tiresome, meaningless exchanges of four letter words so difficult to break out of again.
But all that´s past now. I´m cool - and feel better already. Cheers.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
You didn't articulate your opinion very well than, because somehow it came off as you approving of Humbert's actions. Unfortunately it doesn't go without saying, because there are a lot of people who defend him. I agree that technically he wasn't a pedophile (I've learned a new word: ephebophile), but I think that most 14-year-olds are certainly children. Even a lot of 20-year-olds are children, psychologically. Behaving like an adult is different from thinking like an adult.
shareEven a lot of 20-year-olds are children, psychologically.
---
ditto for 70 year olds and for Humbert
THAT [wild oats] is what story [book at least via Annabel] is about, ie the effects of NOT getting wild oats AS a teen at the right time and it then becoming a total obsession.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/
The bottom line is people just like the sound of "pedophile" better than "ephebophile" and don't much care about making fine distinctions.
share[deleted]
Have you read the first sentence of the wikipedia definition of pedophilia? It includes the word "prepubescent". Find out what that word means, and you might understand.
P.S. Where on earth did you get the idea that if something isn't pedophilia it must be okay. Murder isn't pedophilia. Is murder okay?
Humbert was an ephebophile. Very significant difference.
Pedophiles are into prepubescents.
----------------------
Boopee doopee doop boop SEX
I haven't read the book, but in it, is he like this from before and it s not the first time or was it just this one time that he felt something for somebody way younger Because if it's his first time i would imagine that he would have had a greater conflict accepting the fact, and i didn t find that the movie emphasized the battle inside him.
shareread the trivia. the actress is a 16 year old playing a 14 year old
shareNot tehnically, it's not pedophilia. It's hebephilia. There is a major difference and people have become very lazy with the terminology.
shareTechnically, it´s not about pedophilia cuz Lolita wasn´t physiologically a child.
Ironically, doing a Google search for Lolita results in a warning about child abuse. share