Lolita. Later revealed in his Pale Fire, Lolita was an obscure Spanish name that Nabokov chose for Humbert Humbert’s Dolores Haze. Dolores Haze was a young girl, whose age spanned from twelve to seventeen in the novel. Due to the book’s immense splendour and fame as a piece of literature in the English language, this once rare name somehow became a noun and acquired a meaning of its own, based on Dolores Haze’s basic qualities of age, gender, and appeal. This popular definition of “lolita” persists to this day, spawning derivatives and abbreviations such as “loli” and “lolicon” that sees common usage in the anime community. Of course, people have their own versions of the word, distinguishing sexual context and whatnot, but the variations are still a rather broad usage of the word.
I do not like the general definition of “lolita”, and subsequently, its derivatives. Lolita refers to the object of Humbert Humbert’s passion and obsession, Dolores Haze. He never uses the word for anyone or anything else. It addresses a very specific person. Also notice that Lolita always appears capitalized throughout the novel, reinforcing its distinctiveness. Lolita is suppose to be a very sacrosanct word. So when people use the word “lolita” without capitalization, with apparent indiscretion, saying “Oh isn’t she a loli?” or “You’re a lolicon.”, it is unpleasant for me to see such an unique and sacred word being relegated to banal and civilian usage.
One can already use an underused and overlooked word for such a purpose. Recall the second to the last paragraph of page sixteen in the second vintage international edition of the novel:
“Now I wish to introduce the following idea. Between the age limits of nine and fourteen there occur maidens who, to certain bewitched travelers, twice or many times older than they, reveal their true nature which is not human, but nymphic (that is, demoniac); and those chosen creatures I propose to designate as ‘nymphets.'”
Here Humbert Humbert conveniently defines “nymphets”. He also goes to refine that definition and introduce the word “nympholepts” in the next paragraph that is too long to be included here. Yes, in its original form nymphets has a rather heavy sexual connotation to it, but like any other word, one can customize the definition to their own liking, for example focusing only on the mental and physical traits without the requisite of lust if one wishes so. But the point is, “nymphet” does not refer to anyone specific, while “Lolita” does. Among the innumerous nymphets, by an optional distinction, Lolita would be the epitome, the chosen one by the nympholept. Dolores Haze is Humbert Humbert’s “Lolita”. Shinku is my “Lolita”. It is this symbolic definition that I am faithful to.
As for the novel itself, I love it intensely, and it remains by far the pinnacle of the literature that I have read, and most likely, will be for the rest of my life. It would be an understatement to say the novel is important to me. Part of my soul was forged by Lolita.
Muir Woods 
Lol post this on 4chan’s /a/ and see how much you get flamed.
Also, are you HumbertHumbert and/or Dolores Haze on /a/?
Also, you phail for calling a doll a loli.
Koji, I don’t think you understood my post, so read it carefully again. I avoid words like “loli” and “lolicon”. I know I’m in the extreme minority. Well it’s obvious that you still cling to a common definition. I don’t.
I have always seen “lolita” as one of those literary names that can be used to describe others. Somebody can be a lolita just like somebody can be a Judas or a Doubting Thomas. Like “Lolita”, both “Judas” and “Thomas” refer to specific people. Like “nymphet”, phrases like “traitor” or “doubter” whould be just as fitting when describing somebody. However, all three of these characters have left a strong impression upon society with their traits. Because of this impression, their names become descriptive words in themselves. Then again, I am not quite sure why the other two are usually capitalized and “lolita” is not.
Of course, I do think “lolita” and “loli” are overused. I’ve seen people refer to pale, pudgy 16 year olds as “lolis” before. The word should be used for people that fit the description of Lolita, not for any underaged female.
this is interesting. and well written.
Haha oh wow, this really is Humbert Humbert. This is Tonberryking from /a/.
You’re not much older than I am but you sound a lot more mature.
Let’s be good friends, yoroshiku. ^^
Lolita is a diminutive of the name Dolores. I have no problem with the word lolita but do agree with one of the above comments that it shouldn’t be used for pudgy 16 year olds. I think that Nabokov’s subject matter is so taboo that its never been openly discussed. Surely attraction to young girls is much more common in men than is admitted. What annoys me is the hypocrisy and hysteria that surrounds this attraction. I am physically attracted to attractive women up to the age of 40 or 45 even but I have never forced myself on any woman yet if I were attracted to nymphets or lolitas the fear is I would be suddenly incapable of self control. Even the word paedophile has been changed from one who loves children to one who abuses or preys on them. You can’t even buy a child an ice cream these days now without worrying about someone reporting you for grooming a child for exploitation. PS My comments are in no way an apology for the Humberts of this world!!
I see what you mean Ewan. Here’s my attempt at an explanation, so that maybe people won’t feel so guilty or criticizing about merely being attracted to younger females. I am not justifying those who have committed the acts. Attraction to younger females makes sense from the evolutionary psychology point of view. The theory of Kin Selection says that we are driven to pass down our genes directly (reproduction) or indirectly (helping our genetic relatives). Younger females tend to be more fertile, and hence there’s a greater chance of reproductive success if a male chooses a younger female. This is why most men find women possessing youth or features signifying youthfulness more attractive. Nature does not specify “How young is too young?” but rather that is done by society (culture), and as you said people can be overprotective, enforcing the answer to that question over-zealously.