lo's lost little lovers

lls12@pitt.edu — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:14:29 GMT

hi everyone...

i'm probably older than most for this group (i'm 25), but i thought i'd give it a try...i've always been in the "may-december" situation...i've always been thought of as younger than my age..

hope everyone is well *waves*

I Will Possess Your Heart - [A Lolita Fanmix]

lls12@pitt.edu — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 23:33:53 GMT

Because I clearly have no life, and also no motivation to write, here you go. The idea behind this mix is that most of the songs are from Humbert's point of view, with the exception of one song that is from Lolita's POV and breaks the illusions of the other songs.

FEATURES: Death Cab for Cutie, She Wants Revenge, Interpol, She & Him, and more

The aging, the fearing, the strife

Not sure...

lls12@pitt.edu — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:16:30 GMT

if this is allowed but I ran into some really well written ss/hg (snape/hermione) fanfic inspired by Lolita and I thought I'd share. The first part is here and the second part is here for those who are interested.

lls12@pitt.edu — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:49:07 GMT

A video I made you might enjoy. not the greatest

NO spam please.

Of interest?

lls12@pitt.edu — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:54:36 GMT

I thought it was well-written and certainly thought-provoking.

Little Deadly Demons
Nymphets, sexuality and a North American girl-child

By Kellie Dawson

I bet my first experience with Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita is not unusual. As a precocious preteen, catching Sting’s cue that this was a dirty book, I picked it up and skimmed it for the sex scenes. I was terribly disappointed, of course. While I was searching for pornographic thrills, I missed the fact that the rewards of this astoundingly complex novel lie more in intellectual, rather than erotic, stimulation.

In a more mature reading of Lolita years later, I discovered a pathetic schlub and a tough little chick tangled together in a horrible situation. This time I identified with Lolita. I understood the fun of flirting with an adult who listens, who makes a girl feel special, worth paying attention to. I am fully aware that, in the current climate, to admit that preteens may be interested in sex is not only unfashionable but also a dangerous challenge to social equilibrium. The fact remains, however, that they are. And yet when abuse has occurred we needn’t feel we’re blaming the victim when we acknowledge that interest. A child’s interest in sex never justifies an adult’s abuse of that interest. Vladmir Nabokov understood this point: he portrays a situation in which a very young girl’s natural curiosity is betrayed and used against her.

Unfortunately, Nabokov’s Dolores Haze has entered mainstream American consciousness as Lolita, a teenybopper seductress—a perspective that assumes preteen interest in sexuality is unusual. I argue, however, that, not only is Lolita sexually normal before she encounters Humbert, but also that she succeeds in preserving her sexuality from his potentially warping or perverting influence. True, Humbert may have tampered with her sexual development, forcing her to advance in sexual knowledge much more quickly than our culture accepts. But it is a testament to her admirable strength that this precocity does not rob her of her own normal sexuality, which she retains, never surrendering it even as she is subjected to Humbert’s sexual control.

Nabokov makes it clear that Humbert is not the sole catalyst for Lolita’s sexual development. For one thing, we know that children normally hit puberty at right around twelve years old. We also know from Lolita’s postcoital chat with Humbert that she had already, the summer before meeting him, become interested in sex play. Viewed objectively then, Humbert simply seems to meet Lolita as she is shifting from little girl to young woman, as she is naturally beginning to explore her womanly skills. What Nabokov captures in Lolita is the very thin line between childish playfulness and flirtation that is not unusual in girls her age. He even keeps wonderfully ambiguous what Lolita means by her advances toward Humbert because although it may be normal for prepubescent girls to be sexually curious, we can’t expect them to understand the full import of their flirtatious games.

It is during the sofa episode that the otherwise harmless flirtation between Humbert and Lolita takes an alarming turn and he takes advantage of Lolita’s girlish flirtations for his own sexual satisfaction. Oddly, he claims to do so entirely without our young flirt’s understanding and cooperation, and we may be tempted to believe him. But is his claim plausible? If we agree that Lolita is healthy in terms of her sexual development, does it make sense to suddenly consider her entirely innocent of the desire to participate in the newly discovered and mysteriously titillating form of play that has sex as its subtext even though probably not as its object?

Let’s explore the possibility that Lolita may indeed be tempting the lodger in this scene, may indeed be continuing the flirtation they have been mutually engaged in—without accepting that such behavior means she deserved Humbert’s abuse. As it is to be with the consummation of their physical relationship, it is Lolita who initiates contact on the sofa. True, Humbert has dressed and perfumed and come downstairs from his room to the living room to make himself available, but it is Lolita who joins him on the sofa (clutching an “Eden-red” apple, lest we miss the point that she has arrived to tempt the lodger), and it is she who begins the magazine snatching game that provides the excuse for physical contact between them. Even the otherwise coy Humbert notices that this game is a sham, an excuse to be “all over” him. And, although he is so seldom right about Lolita and her motivations, his guess is apparently correct here since as soon as she obtains the magazine she is content to let it “escape...to the floor” as she reclines on the sofa and, “with perfect simplicity,” extends her legs across Humbert’s lap.

Humbert, who has made so much of Lolita’s orchestration of the scene thus far, now arrogantly (or possibly ignorantly) claims control of the rest of it. Ultimately, he actually seems to believe (and to want the reader to agree) that he is able to “crush out against [Lolita’s] left buttock the last throb of the longest ecstasy man or monster had ever known”—through a series of “stealthy movement,” “obscure adjustments” and babbled distraction—all without her notice. However, his confidence may be more of a stretch than he lets on. And even if we allow that he believes that “she had noticed nothing,” we have no excuse to be so obtuse. We should see more than Humbert’s proclivities and the particular parameters of his fantasies allow him to see.

Since this scene is filtered through Humbert’s perceptions and prejudices, to see what is really going on may be difficult, but it is possible. The challenge is to look past the nymphet Humbert gloatingly believes to be “safely solipsized” to what the actual human girl is doing—to see, not only that Humbert may be wrong in his assumption that she is entirely unaware of his activity, but also that Lolita may actually be supportive of it.

Can we really accept that a girl as intelligent and aware as Lolita would not at least comment upon the lodger’s odd behavior? The fact that she doesn’t suggests that she is consciously indulging it, perhaps even knowing it to be subterfuge for an activity she may not fully understand but which she, for whatever reason, is inclined to allow. Humbert’s last attempt, before the sofa episode, to progress “toward [Lolita’s] taut little rear” resulted in her “shrill brief whine: cut it out!” From this the reader knows as well as Humbert does that Lolita is not apt to tolerate any contact she is not interested in. Therefore, we must admit that she is quite purposely allowing the “golden load” of her legs to remain in Humbert’s “live lap.” Of course, we need not assume her knowledge here is complete. She may be aware that Humbert enjoys the feeling of her legs in his lap without fully understanding why that may be so. Just as she may have previously sat “with curiosity and composure” waiting to be kissed, she may now be interested to see how this game will play out.

Lolita does not unconsciously allow Humbert to reach his goal. Instead, her “every movement ...help[s]” him. Merrily she goes along with his singing. Her legs twitch. Humbert insists that she is unaware of her cooperation, but the reader cannot ignore “the minute hairs [that] bristle ever so slightly along her shins” in response to his “glancing finger tips.” Nor can she disregard “the pungent but healthy heat which like summer haze hung around little Haze.” Even as Lolita “strain[s] to chuck the core of her abolished apple into the fender,” the obviously aroused coconspirator does not remove her legs from Humbert’s lap. Humbert may report this compliance as “innocent,” but he does admit to knowing he is safe to “slow down in order to prolong the glow.” He is safe because although he can’t admit it, he knows that Lolita understands that something is going on—and that she is not alarmed by it. Humbert does not have to hurry to achieve his satisfaction before she notices and objects because she has already noticed and, not only has she not objected, she has left her legs on his lap to help him along.

Under the influence of the “neo-Freudian hash” which he understands insists upon a period of sexual latency for children and under the influence of his own much cherished assumptions about the underlying innocence of nymphets, Humbert cannot help but believe that Lolita is unaffected by the “huge hairy hand [that] massaged and slowly enveloped” her thigh. But we need not be so deluded. Since we are not so invested in the strict categorization of Lolita as a “nymphet,” we need not believe that she is unconscious of her sexuality. In fact, we can see the normal response of a sexually curious girl as Humbert’s “muscular thumb...reach[es] the hot hollow of her groin” and her voice becomes shrill with the titillated alarm that may be expected of a virgin submitting to experimental sex play. Even with Humbert’s thumb on her “groin,” our presumed innocent doesn’t pull away. Lolita throws her head back and bites her lip as Humbert crushes his orgasm out against her.

Saved by the bell, we don’t have time to wonder whether Lolita’s lip biting was due to anxiety or ecstasy since she now (only afterward) decides to “attend to the formidably loud telephone that may have been ringing for ages.” May have, indeed. It is on the phone, “cheeks aflame, hair awry,” that Lolita betrays herself. Humbert prefers to believe that her eyes “pass...over [him] lightly as they did over the furniture,” but given our deeper investigation into what has just occurred, might not we also interpret her shifting gaze as the natural embarrassment of a girl who is still unsure of postorgasmic etiquette? Very simply, she just can’t meet Humbert’s eyes. She holds one of her slippers in her hand, tapping it against the phone table in further evidence of her agitation. We can’t say exactly what is behind this restlessness. Humbert doesn’t try to interpret it, he simply notices it. And we are left to wonder whether Lolita is irritated with her mother for calling and interrupting, whether she’s dissipating the arousal left unsatisfied by the interruption, or whether she is simply jittery because she is confused by what just happened.

“Blessed be the Lord, she had noticed nothing,” Humbert congratulates himself. He seems convinced that Lolita is “safely solipsized,” but as he later admits, he never really knew nor understood her. Indeed, he shows signs here that he’s not sure how to think about what has just occurred. We may assume that the manic quality of his conjectures is the result of the elation he is feeling due to his success—but does it not also give the appearance of “protesting too much”? “I had stolen the honey of a spasm without impairing the morals of a minor. Absolutely no harm done,” he insists. But at the same time he seems to be taking great pains to convince us (and himself) that “Lolita was safe—and [he] was safe.” He seems to struggle to reassure us (and himself) that “what [he] had madly possessed was not she, but [his] own creation...having no will, no consciousness—indeed no life of her own.” In order to rehabilitate in his own mind what has just occurred, Humbert seems to scramble to remove the real girl from the mythical world of his nympholeptic fantasies. And yet, even in the midst of his celebrations, he may be revealing his own fear that he is being naive. His insistence that he had not possessed the actual girl may be an admission that he knows that his account of the episode is not accurate. He may, on some level, realize that the fantasy, the solipsized image of the nymphet he imagines Lolita to be, may not have known what happened—but that the real girl did.

Later, when Humbert has Lolita “prepared for [his] secret delectation” up in their room at the Enchanted Hunters, he bemoans his eventual downfall, admitting that he should have seen it coming. “Somewhere behind the raging bliss,” he remembers “bewildered shadows conferred—and not to have heeded them, this is what I regret!” “I should have understood,” he berates himself,

that Lolita had already proved to be something quite different from innocent Annabel [his childhood love]...I should have known (by the signs made to me by something in Lolita—the real child Lolita...) that nothing but pain and horror would result from the expected rapture” (emphasis added).

Humbert regrets not having heeded these warnings because he finally realizes (too late) that he never was fully in control of his interactions with Lolita. He castigates himself, not for the sex he is to have with Lolita, but for not having heeded the knowledge that she would cause him suffering. But how could he have known she would do so? Where could he have read these signs of which he writes? Where did he get a glimpse of (and then work so hard to ignore) the real child Lolita? The answer is that he should have known from their tryst on the sofa that Lolita was not sexually latent, that he could not expect to be fully in control of her sexuality. His expression of regrets for not having heeded the warnings offered him in the sofa episode proves that, despite his celebrations immediately after the fact, he was not straightforward in his account of what he knew.

This examination of Lolita’s sexuality is not to blame her for her own kidnapping and sexual imprisonment. There is no doubt that Humbert did take unconscionable advantage of a young girl’s natural sexual curiosity. However, by taking the time to pick the real girl out of Humbert’s nympholeptic misinterpretations, to delve for evidence of who she is apart from his biased conception of her, we can see more clearly why Nabokov himself claimed to admire her so as a person. Lolita is admirable because she is not a pathetic and powerless victim. She is not sexually “innocent” when she meets Humbert, but this does not make her in any way responsible for the abuse she suffers at his hands. With Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov has captured perfectly a girl on the brink of young womanhood. She’s gaining the knowledge that will separate her from what we think of as the innocence of childhood, but she doesn’t yet know what to do with this knowledge.

Perhaps we avoid confronting evidence of Lolita’s normal and healthy sexuality because, on the one hand, we’re wedded to the notion of the sexual innocence of children and, on the other hand, because we want (as we should) to avoid even the appearance of blaming the victim. And yet if we deny that Lolita is a normal, sexually curious girl, we fall victim to the subtle persuasion of her victimizer’s logic. To believe that Lolita is a nymphet is to buy into Humbert’s illness. As he explains his “nympholepsy,” one has to be “an artist and a madman, a creature of infinite melancholy, with a bubble of hot poison in your loins” in order to consider little girls to be the “little deadly demons” he considers nymphets to be. In short: only pedophiles believe in the existence of nymphets. The rest of us are free to admit that a young girl has the right to develop sexually without evidence of that development being used against her by a pedophile, or by a society, to blame her for her own abuse.

Source here.

lls12@pitt.edu — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:18:50 GMT

I thought this was unusually cute. Usually with a lot of publicized May/December relationships, there's a bit of a 'what?' feeling going on. Don't get that here at all, which is why I thought I'd share.

Glen Hansard (of the Irish group The Frames) met Marketa Irglova when she was twelve, and he was thirty (I believe). Her father was a good friend of Glen and a fan of The Frames, and invited Glen to come stay in his house and play a show in the Czech Republic. Here's an excerpt from an interview I found where Glen elaborates on his relationship with Marketa:

I met her when she was 12... Mar came into my life very similarly to how she does in the film. She was very young, but she came up to my room one day when I was singing one of my songs, and said, ''That song you're singing, did that really happen to you?'' And I said, ''Well, yeah, kind of.'' And she said, ''Did it, or didn't it?'' And I said, ''Well, it's kind of poetic license.'' And she was like, ''Well, why are you singing it, then?'' And I said, ''Well, as a songwriter you're allowed to do that.'' And she said, ''Well, I don't agree. I think you should be singing about what happened in your life.''

In response to a question about when the two officially got together, Hansard replied, "In April. I think we fell in love a couple of years ago, but nothing happened until recently. To be honest with you, I felt that even back then this girl had become so prominent in my life that she would probably be the girl I'd marry one day. But you keep that in the back of your head."

Now 37 and 20 respectively, Hansard and Irglova live together in Dublin and have co-starred in the movie referenced above, Once. They also collaberated on a 2006 album, The Swell Season. I've had an opportunity to listen to it, and I personally really like it. Hansard's voice sounds exceptionally like Cat Stevens', so I can't help but like him. Irglova's voice is very sweet, ultimately they both seem really skilled and their chemistry reflects a lot in their music.

You can find the full interview here.

If you're interested in hearing what they sound like, you can hear their song Falling Slowly here at Radio Blog Club.

I guess the difference between the relationships of popular starlets and older men (let's face it, generally producers - as far as the music business is concerned) and that of Hansard and Irglova is that they both seem very mature. Hansard doesn't seem like the usual man-child, and Irglova just presents herself in a mature fashion belying her age. Sorry if it sounds like I'm gushing - I really don't intend to. I suppose in a way they're really the opposite of what Humbert and Lolita were and represented, which is why I felt they were interesting and definitely worth mentioning here.

Hello All

lls12@pitt.edu — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:39:41 GMT

Hi there everyone! My name is Courtney and I am twenty years old. I am obsessed with Lolita. Of course I have seen the movies, read the book and the screen play, studied the relationships and the whole idea of nymphets, the sexuality of what our current social standard considers children, and what kind of sexual attraction is natural vs. unnatural (pedophilia), if that idea is indeed something unnatural, don't hate me for saying that, but there is a movement, as sick as it seems to me, that advocates the sexuality between adults and prepubescent children.

Anyway, I wanted to join just to hear more opinions, to help develop my own and connect with people who are just as obsessed as I am!! So, to start off, I'd love to hear which of the main themes in the book struck you closest to home? And how? Why?

Obviously Nabokov coined the phrase Nymphet, so as to their validity as a 'kind' is subjective. I think, mostly because the first time I watched this movie (I watched the Kubric version as a fairly young child, before I even knew there was a book) I wanted to be Lolita, that the idea of a 'nymphet' interested me the most.

In my own personal opinion 'nymphets' do exist, they just didn't have a name before this book! And, as I have observed, they
are very similar to how Nabokov describes them. Where my opinion differers from many others who I have talked to about this, is that I think having a 'Lolita complex' makes older men attracted to you, vs. being attracted to older men, as so many people seem to relate that phase to. I not only think it is natural for a young girl who is starting to crush or have sexual attraction to be attracted to much older men (their teachers, family friends, Movie/TV stars, etc...) I think ALL young girls do. How old were you when your parents started to let you watch PG-13 movies? When did you start to have a favorite Prime Time TV show? Those major media outlets sexualize adults, make the hero an adult, etc... To not be attracted to older men would be the abnormal. I find, that those who I considered nymphets, like Nabokov said, are not the most beautiful, certainly the most charismatic, and though innocent by the very nature of their age, have a certain adult maturity that make an emotional connection with an adult even possible. I don't think a nymphet means to give off an intense sexual persona, but it is very obvious to those who have the sexual maturity to recognize it.

All though, in shame, I have to admit I would have LOVED to consider myself a nymphet when I was young enough to be one, I'm not so sure that I was. That being said, I think I was different than my girlfriends that were around my same age. As an early teen, when I started to really come into my sexuality, without even meaning to or realizing I was, I had what I would call 'run ins' with teachers and older men. Nothing that I meant to solicitate, but innocently, I could see how I did. I was outspoken and confidant but lacked a lot of common sense. I felt horrible, at that age because of my lack of friends. I had a couple best friends since childhood, but they had seem to make so many new friends going into jr. high, where I seemed to come out every summer without any new friends. I had a VERY hard time relating to either girls or boys my age. Furthermore, the fact that very few few boys my age had crushes on me, and all of my friends, who I didn't consider to be as attractive as me, had boyfriends or secret admirers, really shook my confidence. But, if I went out to eat or go to the movies or to the mall with my friends I was the only one who was ever it on. And, we were young, 12, 13 or 14. All of the attention I EVER got as a younger girl coming into her sexuality was from older men. However, I think the simple fact that I never had relations with an older man until I was 'of legal age' pretty much discualifies me as a nymphet.

Hope to hear all of your opinions. Thanks for reading! BYE!

Lolita love affair scandalises Italy

lls12@pitt.edu — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:52:47 GMT

A 34-year-old Italian man who had sex with a 13-year-old girl has had his sentence cut by a two-thirds because a court decided there was "real love" between the pair.

Antonio de Pascale, a butcher from Vicenza, admitted that he had a four-month long relationship with the girl, who sent him a stream of torrid text messages on his mobile phone.
advertisement

His lawyers argued, however, that there was a "deep tenderness" between him and the girl and that he had "fallen head over heels in love" after a sexual encounter in his car. They said the girl had consented to every action.

The court in Vicenza accepted their opinion and sentenced de Pascale to only one year and four months in jail out of a possible 12-year term.

Because of a general amnesty for anyone who receives a sentence of less than three years, de Pascale is unlikely to serve any prison time for his Lolita-esque romance.

Antonio Marziale, the president of the Association for the Protection of the Rights of Minors, said the decision was "execrable".

He said: "It is not right to judge whether or not a 13-year-old girl is willing. The law should safeguard young girls who are too immature to make these decisions against adults without scruples."

However, Simonetta Matone, a judge in Rome, said the law must "always look to be reasonable in these cases".

She added: "Every relationship is a relationship and the real maturity, whether physical or psychological, of the minor must be weighed, with the help of experts."

The court decision has unleashed a wave of condemnation in Italy, and even authors of teen novels stepped forward to caution their readers against early sexual encounters.

Federico Moccia, the author of Excuse Me But I Love You, said: "This seems a very strange situation to me. Obviously in a relationship between a child and an adult, the adult has to stop himself. A girl has to be able to value the situation, and a girl this young is certainly not capable. My appeal to 13-year-olds is to wait for your time."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/07/witaly107.xml

lls12@pitt.edu — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:41:33 GMT

Hi,

I just joined. My name is Hazel and I'm 15. I've been a fan of "Lolita" ever since I first read it, when I was 11, probably because it echoed some of my experiences and validated them and also just because I saw aspects of myself in that girl. I just seem to get on better with older men too. Boys my age confuse me and make me feel really introverted and bewildered. About me: I can be shy but I like attention too; I am into lots of fandoms and books; hopefully I am sweet and interesting. I am obviously an insomniac as well, at least on certain nights. :) I have bad habits and personality quirks like everybody else but I think I make a decent friend and e-penpal if anyone is looking. Anyway just wanted to say hello.

tv alert

lls12@pitt.edu — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:01:56 GMT

Lolita (1962) is going to be on TCM tonight at 10:30 EST. Watch it and enjoy the wonderful commercial-free goodness!

new here :-)

lls12@pitt.edu — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:46:34 GMT

I'm not sure whether or not this post will be read by anyone...but I hope that this comm. is still active. I just joined this community, I couldn't help not to. I've read some older posts, and I seem to relate with a lot of you. I'm sixteen by the way, and my name is Christina. So, I was just wondering, are any of you with your own Humbert currently?

lls12@pitt.edu — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:33:17 GMT

Store Pulls 'Lolita' bed for young girls.

LOL.

lls12@pitt.edu — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:11:49 GMT

I've been in this community for a while now and, before that, I was in saintlolita, so I've seen the ups and downs both of the communities have went through. I remember when a while back some people (including myself) were complaining about the amounts red lipstick picture posts because the posters were sort of pushing it by assuming that the shade of their lipstick made the entry even slightly relevant (really, I think most of us knew the only purpose was to fish for comments from the men here. Didn't everyone just love how it was usually prefaced by something like...I've never really been a nymphet, but...[insert photos here]).
Anyway, I was having a conversation with another user on here and we both thought that lately the posts have been resembling either sex community or role play community posts. Of course, these are just the opinions of two users out of many, but I think I've seen comments from others that suggest that they may have the same view. It's really too bad. And, feel free to disagree with me if you want (obviously), but isn't it just a little weird when there is an influx of posts about young girls who seriously wish they could be in the exact situation as the character Lolita? I'm here because I enjoyed the book and sometimes there are some interesting discussions here about it or issues related to it. But I'm not here to say pedophilia is cool or that I wish I could have a man like Humbert. I don't want to have a "Hum". And although I enjoyed the book, I didn't enjoy it in the way that made me have fantasies about it. I thought it was tragic and quite honestly some parts made me flinch a little. I didn't finish reading it and thought, damn, I need to go out and get myself a man like that!

well hello there

lls12@pitt.edu — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 01:30:27 GMT

I must admit that when I found this community, I almost creamed my jeans.
I'm fifteen and I first read Lolita during the summer of the year I turned thirteen--
and I must say my reaction was a tad inappopriate for a thirteen year old.
I love the book, and I love the concept.
It's strange to finally see something that is usually portrayed as so negative bathed in a positive life.
As Vanity Fair stated, it's the only convincing love story of our time.

I most certainly wish that I had myself a nymphette.

lls12@pitt.edu — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:44:20 GMT

hihi

first time posting to this community...

*waves*

New to LJ and it's communities.

lls12@pitt.edu — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:17:19 GMT

Hello, I've never posted to a community before and have spent my first few days on livejournal to discover how to post photos and actual logs. I'm an English Lit major and the book Lolita is hilarious and Humbert is the charming man I've been searching for since I was a little girl. Lolita outlined my exact fantasy, the life I wished I had as a child, but it's too late to live it now. Anyway, I hope to make some friends on here, as I sit around by myself mostly.

Introduction to Me

lls12@pitt.edu — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:37:25 GMT

Hello, there. This is my first post in quite some time, but I've visited before at different junctures of my life. So I suppose a brief introduction is in order, eh? I am a 28-year old man, happily married and stuck in a revolving door of a career that I cannot exit until at least 10 years from now. I have a sarcastic sense of humor and tend be both sensitive and blunt. My interests are too varied to list. I'll try anything once.

What I seek? A smart and witty schoolgirl for friendship. Someone to share intelligent conversation about film, literature, art and life with. Someone to laugh with and to cry with, if the need arises. A friend... just a very good friend. I'm a textaholic and always just a click away from my e-mail. I'm loyal, and I love hard.

I hope to meet you all soon. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and sharing things.

Happy New Year's.

Just curious...

lls12@pitt.edu — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:10:44 GMT

Hello fellow lo_philes...I joined a while ago but have never really posted.

I know people are drawn to Lolita for many different reasons, and I was just wondering: what is that reason for you all? How many of you are or have been in Lolita/Humbert-type relationships? And did you read the novel first, or see one of the film adaptations? Personally, I am in a May-December relationship at the moment and am an English major who always has to read the novel first - i think Nabokov's prose is just amazing :)

How shitty

lls12@pitt.edu — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:27:23 GMT

So I was going through communities I'm in on GreatestJournal, and even though the Lolita one isn't very active, I saw a post saying that LiveJournal deleted someone whose name was Lolita and also a Spanish community related to the book. I'd heard rumors of LJ becoming kind of fascist, but I didn't pay much attention to them until now, I guess. Maybe that's why the other LJ community got shut down? They say they're trying to protect people against pedophiles, but they're really just stamping out free speech. I'm tired of these self-righteous assholes trying to "save you from yourself."

lls12@pitt.edu — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:40:42 GMT

Hi there. I've been reading through the whole community for the past week or so and I have to say, this place seems like the right place for me. I've been known to be a bit of a nymphet, though I never really fit Humbert's physical ideal. In spite of this, I've always preferred older gentlemen and they have always taken a liking to me. I'm sixteen now. You could say I have a Hum. I've been obsessed, for lack of a better word, with Lolita for about a year now. I've seen both movies, but not before I read the book. And what a book it was! I prefer the book over the films, and the Lyne version over the Kubrick, though I'm kind of hesitant to admit that - being a Kubrick fan and inclined to like older things before newer things (though I presume you've gathered that). Anyway, before I bore you, those are the particulars and it's nice to meet you all.

lls12@pitt.edu — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 04:11:49 GMT

Uh.

I found this piece of writing...

lls12@pitt.edu — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:36:28 GMT

...that I wrote a couple of months ago. I figured you might enjoy it for its Lolita influenced "nymphetual" themes.

Fourteen year old's are very funny girls. They pout. They cry. They pout. They cry. They squeal some. They act up and tease you, do things like jump on your lap and kiss you on the mouth. Hard and dry. Always dry. They wouldn't dare French you. Virgins were the worst. Not the shy, chaste, library-dwelling, braids and glasses wearing kind. The arrogant, precocious, no-tits-but-wears-bikinis-anyway kind. They'll sit on your lap, in a tiny little dress, with their taut thighs rubbing on the fabric of your jeans (while you strain to feel the almost tangible spasm of the thighs' tiny muscles), their softness enticingly concealed, writhing about trying to get comfortable on your legs, fully aware of what they're doing to you. They look up after awhile at your face, which is trying vainly to conceal its expressive translation of your lower area's gorging excitement. The soft flush, the big black pupils, the heady feeling, the sensitivity increase of your skin. But you can't make a move. If you do, you've let the devil win. Do anything. Hold her hand. Kiss her mouth. Slap her face. Break her skin. Break her fingers, one by one, so she can't rub your shoulders anymore, which they all enjoy doing and turns you on like crazy. Break her things. Play dolls with the little brat. Anything. But don't let yourself give in to her doe-eyed, black-lashed second layer of evil. Its what they all want. So you always have to be one-step ahead and play it aloof. Disinterest, your last strand of control. Meanwhile you're forever dreaming of making her swoon. To have her write your name on all her schoolbooks and through her diary, bleaching it into her dark underwear, have her name her stuffed animals after you in adoration is a most popular and enjoyable fantasy. I was in full realisation she would always be the one holding the leash. They would drive you insane, these fucking chicks. Because they don't love you, they just want to see you squirm with lust and their infliction of sensory deprivation. They would make you do anything they want. Anything. You will do anything. Just to get this searing, devastating torture all over again.

lls12@pitt.edu — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:00:45 GMT

So, every now and then, I like to check up on our girl Dominique Swain and see if she's spiraled down any further or if she finally found her hairbrush and used it.

I put the more recent photos towards the beginning.

Her skin is unfortunate in some of these, as is her hair, but she looks alright in few of these. Still as awkward as she was in Lolita. I had no idea she was in Alpha Dog. Anyone see that? I won't, so you can go ahead and spoil it for me if you want.

Edward Albee's Lolita

lls12@pitt.edu — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:38:42 GMT

In 1981 Lolita, a play by Edward Albee, premiered on Broadway. The thing bombed, much like the 1971 musical Lolita, My Love.

Albee's play adaptation starred Donald Sutherland as Humbert Humbert and Blanche Baker as Lolita. I can see Sutherland being Humbert-esque. Blanche Baker was 25 years old in 1981.

Baker in 1984 with Molly Ringwald in Sixteen Candles

I'm posting this because I found this funny little video on YouTube. Embedding is disabled, but here's the link for you: http://youtube.com/watch?v=WMmd_EI1GmU

It's a scene from a 2007 performance of the play. I'm interested in hearing what others think after watching the scene. Perhaps the most striking thing to me is the actress playing Lolita--her voice, her crassness, and especially her size. She's so tiny.

Also, you can read a bit of the script thanks to Google Books: Right here.