Lolita Issues
The “Lolita issue” of Black Heart Magazine is currently available for purchase in the Black Heart store. It was originally conceived as a celebration of Vladimir Nabokov’s seminal novel, as well as an exploration of many other kinds of forbidden love. So perhaps it should have been anticipated, but I was still surprised when some submissions took the theme as a licence to defend pedophiles and to question the condemnation of child molestation. This was seriously disconcerting, so I sat down to analyze some of the thinking behind real-life Lolita issues.
The Lolita Issue, available for in-store instant download now
While I can certainly appreciate the questioning of society’s supposedly logical rules, and applaud writers who are brave enough to probe our most cherished taboos, I absolutely cannot agree with those who seek to do violence to others. Rape is rape, no means no, and Lolitas will always be off-limits. Still, the whole point of the issue was to explore these apparently ironclad rules, despite their being unpopular opinions that are seemingly justified only by the very people who seek to break them.
So why are schoolgirls such an overused trope? (To the point where “sexy schoolgirl” costumes are worn at Halloween and in porn?) What is it that men find so attractive about too-young girls, and why do women adopt these stereotypes in seduction? In short: Why the Lolita fetish?
The novel Lolita, in its most literal reading, is the story of a pedophile seeking to defend his crimes. Though one might have expected a public outcry against its shocking subject matter at the time of its publication, Lolita was met with neither an outraged public nor any demands that it be banned. Indeed, it would appear that art excuses everything, as the fictional protagonist Humbert Humbert’s defence “She seduced me!” has been taken at face value by readers ever since the book’s release in 1955.
Should we be shocked by Lolita? It’s just fiction, after all, yet it holds many truths about the workings of the predatory mind. Funny how it’s never described as a penetrating insight into the warped mind of a child molester, potentially raising questions about its author’s inspiration. Instead Nabokov’s masterpiece is always excused on the grounds of its artistic merit, and we cannot censor art. But is Lolita really art, or merely smut in art’s clothing?
Is Lolita the tale of a diddler, or “the only convincing love story of our century,” as Vanity Fair once described it? Is Humbert merely a confused man who finds himself in love with someone whom society forbids him to love? Is age really nothing more than a number? Is Humbert a tragic hero, or an evildoer seeking to justify his misdeeds? These are the types of questions the book ought to raise, yet more often than not classroom discussions of Lolita’s themes tend toward talk of the book’s poetic language, allusions and complicated references to mirrors, anagrams and playwrights. Why do we circle the black heart of this novel without ever plunging our knives in?
The lust for schoolgirls is certainly one of the more flexible taboos in modern society. While actually fucking young girls carries a sentence of statutory rape, conquering the “barely legal” coed is the plot of many pornographic films. Men are encouraged to lust after girls barely a day above the age of consent, and yet if they act on those desires with real live girls, they are considered child rapists – regardless of the girl’s consent. But what is the real difference between a girl who is 18-minus-a-day and an actual 18-year-old? These arbitrary lines define the acceptability of our desires, yet we continue to push their boundaries with films that offer roles to continually younger women. Is it fair to encourage men to desire young girls – then clap them into prison when they act on their desires? It’s a bait and switch, where the bait is always jailbait.
Some will surely argue that not-quite-18-year-olds are much different than 12-year-olds, and that people must be prevented from taking advantage of those who are not yet aware of their sexuality. I would certainly agree, and yet where shall we draw the line? Either we arbitrarily err on the side of caution and only consider adults to be sexually aware, or we mistakenly attribute sexual understanding to people of all ages and risk harming those who have not yet formed sexual opinions and understandings. And what constitutes a “healthy” sexual awareness, anyway? How do we determine whether or not someone has been harmed by sexual discussions, advances or media representations thereof?
The Lolita issues only multiply as we seek to understand the difference between so-called normality and its perversions, and Nabokov’s book continues to thwart our desire for easy answers. It is, however, absolutely worth reading, and if you’ve done so, I’m interested in your thoughts. What does Lolita mean to you, and how does your understanding of the book reflect your real-life values?
(Originally published at Hour.ca)
