New topic
PrintableRodya24 said: EmbattledWarrior said: Yah but Woody is still with the adoptee, thats the difference, it was a one time offense most likely in the heat of passion. And they're quite happy together 
And she probably gets his estate as soon as he croaks, so for the money he's got, i'd let him fuck me when i was 13 Not to condone that, but hey money makes the world go round and who knows maybe it was actually love. Theres a very thin line with this subject, it's like the book Lolita by Nabakov, sometimes its the alleged victim who's the victimizer. But when it comes to Kelly, i can't play devils advocate, He's a moron and got everything thats coming to him. [Edited 8/13/07 17:53pm] But in the novel Lolita, Nabokov also makes it clear that the main character, Humbert, is responsible. Re-read the last scene in which he laments how Lo's childhood was taken away from her -- that he could not hear her voice among the children playing. Moreover, the story is told from Humbert's perspective -- a vain character who is more than capable of telling a tale for his gain. Nabokov himself said that Lolita was the end product of his "love affair with the English language." He was celebrating the English tongue, even its twisted but effective ability to portray a pedophile as a scorned lover. But I digress... I think the question here is not whether there is "a very thin line with this subject" which I disagree with. It is how society perceives relationships between men and young girls who are racial minorities. I wonder if Woody Allen would have been prosecuted if the adoptee was a white American. And yes, I agree. R. Kelly is a moron. yah i know about the novel, and yes he was celebrating the english tongue, But the original manuscript to lolita, was quite different specifically the last scene. His editor made him change it to lessen the backlash that came with it. Their is no doubt that the child in the book was leading hubert on turning him into a mindless simpleton. But hubert still had to the predator in some type of way. But lets forget about that. You certainly have a point about minorities in relation to american society. Cause it's no surprise that their is a double standard concerniing male victims and female victims. Now you're adding racism into mix. What does that say? Americans are racist prudish bastards. something thats known globally I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
EmbattledWarrior said: Rodya24 said: But in the novel Lolita, Nabokov also makes it clear that the main character, Humbert, is responsible. Re-read the last scene in which he laments how Lo's childhood was taken away from her -- that he could not hear her voice among the children playing. Moreover, the story is told from Humbert's perspective -- a vain character who is more than capable of telling a tale for his gain. Nabokov himself said that Lolita was the end product of his "love affair with the English language." He was celebrating the English tongue, even its twisted but effective ability to portray a pedophile as a scorned lover. But I digress... I think the question here is not whether there is "a very thin line with this subject" which I disagree with. It is how society perceives relationships between men and young girls who are racial minorities. I wonder if Woody Allen would have been prosecuted if the adoptee was a white American. And yes, I agree. R. Kelly is a moron. yah i know about the novel, and yes he was celebrating the english tongue, But the original manuscript to lolita, was quite different specifically the last scene. His editor made him change it to lessen the backlash that came with it. Their is no doubt that the child in the book was leading hubert on turning him into a mindless simpleton. But hubert still had to the predator in some type of way. But lets forget about that. You certainly have a point about minorities in relation to american society. Cause it's no surprise that their is a double standard concerniing male victims and female victims. Now you're adding racism into mix. What does that say? Americans are racist prudish bastards. something thats known globally  But I often forget that this fact is 1) widely known and worse 2) even accepted as unchangeable by many.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |