Coitus.
Though I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, I wasn’t very shocked by the direction Nabokov steered his novel plot-wise. The foreshadowing of Clare Quilty’s increased significance was present dating back to Dolores’ poster of him when she was still a nymphet. In the foreword, we already know that Humbert is in some sort of legal predicament, so he either committed a crime or was perceived to do some type of wrongdoing. Dolores wasn’t meant to end up with Humbert forever. I can go on stating the obvious…
Where Nabokov got me was as the novel progressed, Humbert’s inability to detach from his memories of Annabel began to take over his daily thought process. It’s odd because this reminds me of how a young child can’t get over his or her first ever relationship. And the irony with Humbert is that he uses his attraction for nymphet Lolita, not necessarily Dolores, to project his feelings. This sounds like more Freudian stuff, and it boggles me. But I think there’s more meaning on a psychosociological context. Humbert simply goes into an emotional downward spiral when Dolores starts mature past her nymphet stage, mentally then physically. And no one could have stopped him because he didn’t let anyone get as close to him as Dolores.
Weren’t some statistics in the Kinsey Reports fabricated? I vaguely recall something along those lines…
http://www.neatorama.com/2006/09/19/10scientific-frauds-that-rocked-the-world/
(See #5)
Though I dispute a lot of statistical declarations Kinsey states, he did make a good point that we must separate the normal and abnormal from the right and wrong in any scientific study (p. 369). Also he argues that people should not be considered strictly homoesexual or heterosexual, but by the amount of experiences they have had. The good points stop there.
I’m shocked that a lot of people to took heart what Kinsey wrote. High schoolers engage in more sexual activity than college kids? Over 60 percent of pre-adolescent boys engage in homosexual activity? How could he possibly come to these conclusions with his miniature biased sample population? That’s science for you.
I wonder what Kinsey’s guidelines are for what constitutes a homosexual act. I also think that if Kinsey were alive, he should have taken a visit to the Museum of Sex. I would like to see his reaction when he’d find out that species can have more than one gender, engage in homosexual activity like a pastime, and a male seahorse can be impregnated.
Also, coitus is a funny word.
In the “Sex Perverts” document, I was dying of laughter, “Furthermore, most perverts tends to congregate at the same restaurants, night clubs, and bars, which places can be identified with comparative case in any community, making it possible for a recruiting agent to develop clandestine relationships which can be used for espionage purposes.” (p. 377)
Did this document just attempt to vilify gay bars? Homosexuals hang out with homosexuals at social venues usually for the same reason heterosexuals would go out to places where there’s other heterosexuals: To get some love, not always meet with communists and plot a government takedown.
Another funny point was the fear that Nazi and Communist governments would attempt to blackmail “homosexuals and other sex perverts” performing their “abnormal sex activities,” thus posing a security risk. This report throws homosexuals in the same boat as sex perverts, and makes homosexual coitus synonymous with abnormal sexual acts. This country has come a long way, and still got a long way to go.
Note to self: late posts must stop now.
Tags: coitus, Homosexuality, Humbert, kinsey, Lolita, Obsession
