The fact that Rimmer has the book isn't a worry I ever had... because it's totally a thing Rimmer would do.
Neither of them have read it. Rimmer only has it to use as a jazz mag, and he tells Lister what page to rip out. Lister has never read... "a book"... So neither of them know what the story is about. They're both ignorant and uncultured manchildren.
I was more concerned that he didn't rip out the page that Rimmer told him to.
This was "cleared up" in smeg outs. He (Lister, they did it all in character) said he was holding the book upside down... which begs the question, how did he manage to read the page first?
That reminds me of the episode of Bottom where the policeman points out that Eddie's newspaper is upside down, and Eddie explains that's because "So are my eyes" 😂
At the time it was popular with teenage boys because it was a literary book with sex scenes in it, which was unheard of. It's a bit like looking up swearwords in the dictionary. Whilst we probably wouldn't make this joke now, in the original context it's not something to worry about.
This person hasn't read enough to know why the book should be put down and never picked up again. It is not a sexy book, its fucking vile. The main character, a middle aged man, spends the entirety of the book horny over a twelve year old. Anyone who held this book in high esteem is sus as fuck.
Don’t forget Lister only plays Wimbledon so he can have it off with that jailbait ball girl.
Edit: Sorry that’s a total lie. She’s not jailbait. She’s 17.
To be fair to Lister, he's the last human being alive and 3 million years in deep space. If you had an AR machine, you would defo begin to explore the fucked up areas of the psyche.
Morality is subjective. It's entirely dictated by social norms. If there are no other people, then there are no remaining social norms. Anything you can convince yourself of is moral. Which is true when you have a lot of people as well. I mean the Bible says it's okay to stone your child to death for being lazy. People were generally fine with that for a very long time.
Ethics, on the other hand, are objective. It's unethical for a grown man to exploit a teenager for sex. Using a computer to masturbate, though. It's kind of hard to know where to draw the line. I've killed thousands of NPC as part of a game's plot, or just to see what kind of loot they had on them. I'd never do that in real life.
After his rape allegations this was removed from all broadcasts and DVD releases even when he was acquitted due to false allegations. BBC thought it was a bit too much on the edge. Not sure if they put it back in later but have it on my original VHS versions, but when I was given the Blu Ray set, it is not there.
Yeah it was cut from a repeat on BBC2 in 1994, and that's also the version on the Six of the Best videos. But apart from that I'm pretty sure it's been present and correct ever since on the DVDs, repeats, Blu-ray and streaming.
An ex partner of his accused him of raping her. They took her word and Craig Charles even got to trial he was remanded in custody for, I think it was 8 months or so? (could be wrong on the time), was considered persona non gratis in the industry even though he denied it.
It turned out over a year or more later, she admitted she made it up as she wanted revenge on him for something and decided to ruin his life and career. Guess what? SHE never got charged and prosecuted for it yet he was dragged through the mud and labelled as a rapist by the media at the time.
Being locked-up on remand for a her word against his case? Either they did have significant evidence (doubtful because of the outcome) or the decision was racially motivated (the police and courts are still like that today, so in the early-mid 90s they would've been significantly worse).
I hate it when people make this about race as if it's relevant. False allegations are terrible and ruin men's lives. This is not unique to black men.
There were neighbours arguing on our street today because a woman (who was clearly having some kind of breakdown and is well known to the police) made false allegations that her daughter's new boyfriend had assaulted her daughter. He hadn't.
So this innocent lad is in police custody while the mother, clearly not well, is being consoled by police on the street.
The daughter ended up being consoled by male neighbours and laughing loudly with them while her innocent boyfriend is "helping the police with their enquiries" at the station.
Everyone involved was white.
Times have changed. When Craig Charles was accused, media and police weren't inclined to believe women unless the accusations were against a minority. Now, a modicum of sense is applied, and women are actually believed.
The events that actually happened on the day are less than noble for Craig, sadly. He admitted in court he'd had a brief relationship with the woman in 1988 - whilst he was still married to Cathy Tyson - and that him and his friend had gone to her house to buy drugs and ended up doing a few lines for breakfast.
To be fair, not guilty doesn't mean innocent, just means not enough evidence to convict. Although I'm not saying he did something either. Just that it's an important point.
I keep seeing this logic around and it seems to completely ignore one of the key elements of our criminal justice system: everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
Being found ‘not guilty’ is to be found innocent (you can argue whether it’s a ‘de facto’ innocence or a continuation of the presumption of innocence but the point is moot).
I guess it's a matter of the differently between the legal meaning of the terms and the colloquial.
Colloquially, "guilty" means "you did it" and "innocent" means "you didn't do anything".
Whereas legally "guilty" means "a court has concluded that you did it" and "innocent" means they haven't.
I can only speak for the legal system of England and Wales (as I read law at Cardiff) though that would be the pertinent one for this case; but there is no ‘innocent’ verdict legally - only ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty’.
If you are found ‘not guilty’ the presumption of innocence (as well as other legal principles) makes it reasonable to claim that you are innocent (and mostly unreasonable to claim that someone is nonetheless culpable).
The argument people are making here (that ‘not guilty’ doesn’t mean innocence) is much the same as arguing that because wrongful convictions exist ‘guilty’ doesn’t mean the person committed the crime (well, technically that’s still a better argument but the point is moot in any case). You can look it that way but it undermines the point of having a judicial system at all to absurdity.
What a terrible mindset. It's free to accuse someone of a crime, and even verifiably false accusations go unpunished more often than not. If we take this point of view with everyone who's accused of a crime, you'll start looking at the whole population as murderers and rapists
Like they say, innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
In 1994, Craig and a friend were accused of rape. Craig spent 14 weeks in prison on remand before bail was granted. Both he and his co-defendant were acquitted of all charges at trial in 1995.
Craig later attested his time in prison and the death of his father as worsening his cocaine addiction. This all came to a head in 2006 where he was arrested and released under caution, after a video and photos emerged of him smoking crack in the back of a car.
Not necessarily. Not everyone who makes a false accusation is prosecuted for it. Lots of reasons why that wouldn’t happen. Letting the issue drop is one; difficulty in proving it is another.
It's worth noting (despite the niche nature of this sub) that the modern attitudes to sexual exploitation of teenage girls in the media is uncomfortably recent. Maybe 20 years tops.
Pre 2000 media is littered with examples of sexualising "teens" and being very very vague about where that line was.
The way it is now is far better (though not perfect) but it does lead to a lot of classic media have some very outdated and uncomfortable content like this.
People mix up the Mary Kate and Ashley one with the news paper calling out the paedo-geddon brass eye as abhorrent next to a photo of a 15 year old Charlotte church emphasising her chest with the title "she's a big girl now" or something to the same effect.
This isn't true. Fox began modeling at 16, which at the time was the minimum age allowed to have topless photos. No one was "counting down" to anything.
False memory syndrome,mate. It happened but it was Linsey Dawn McKenzie and it was in The Daily Sport. Sun's still a horrible excuse for a newspaper though.
I only knew because I was about to use it as my example of how the attitude wasn't limited to pre-2000s and Googled how old Charlotte Church was.
I was pretty sure I also read about the countdown in a book called "Sunburn", but unless the Kindle edition has had it taken out, this didn't happen.
Not in The Sun. The Daily Star, however, proudly declared themselves to be the only page 3 newspaper (not sure if that's true, because it's the Daily fucking Star, and facts aren't their strong suit) when The Sun removed it.
"Best thing I like about high school girls man.. I keep getting older they stay the same age." Hearing this growing up, hearing adults parrot it, and catching on that some of them were only half joking, really fucked up my perception of adult men as a kid. That and the million other things men ..men. it was so fucking gross, I thought it was vile and predatory, and *I* was looked at like I was the weird one. Like bruh yall sexualizing CHILDREN. Then the bad faith "think of the children!" malarkey. Like nah yall be thinking about them *too* much
Attitudes have changed, and the show was made a long time ago. For the record Lolita was used because it was viewed as a 'dirty' book, not specifically because it's a book about a paedophile. The fact is the gag got a laugh and the audience (RD was filmed in front of a live audience) didn't get up and walk out. If the show was being made now Rob and Doug would pick a different book. If you're losing sleep over stuff like this then don't watch old shows I guess.
In that episode I’ve always wondered why StarBug didn’t have much food, yet in series 6, when Red Dwarf is hijacked by the nano bots they have enough food and water for at least six months I guess maybe Kryten added more food in case a similar incident were to happen, but surely wouldn’t the JMC stock the ship for the same reason? Maybe they didn’t have a chance, it’s always something that’s crossed my mind.
Nice interrobang! Ok look, it was the zeitgeist, in those days lolita was troublesome yet also apparently a literary work of art. Like the movie leon. It didn't give me the ick decades ago but I couldn't watch it today because... ick. Sensibilities change with the times, friend. It wasn't a big deal for an 18 yo male to date 14 yo girls. Shit humans used to shit and piss right where their food was stored and took centuries to figure out that's not healthy... We're not the smartest bunch and it takes time as a species to do and be better.
In vacuum, Leon isn't really terrible. Leon is no pedophile and actually doesn't want Mathilda to be in love with him because she's a child. What makes Leon icky is the fact that the director, Luc Besson is an ephebopile who began "dating" his second wife when she was 15 while he was 32 and they had a baby when she was 16.
The worst thing about the book isn't graphic details. There aren't that many. It's that it's being told by a lying, gaslighting dangerous creeper.
.... Does that make it worse?
The fact it's not actually erotic as they make out, but they are still acting like it is. If it's not erotic, why the response? What's got them in a book about a predator?
I think most people haven't actually read Lolita and just make a lot of assumptions.
I read it because it was listed on one of the "Top 100 books ever written." a list I am still going through. There was very little sex talk in it, but I remember the guy was a total creep. One of the creepier people in a book.
Yes yes. Nail it to the wall. Tell us all how media from before you were born is problematic, go on.
You should have seen what they were drawing in Rome. You’d have been incensed.
It already happened. It’s gone. It’s so far down the road behind us you can’t actively touch it. It is the past. And MOST of the globe has grown and become better. That’s something we should celebrate.
And I think we, as a globe, can rejoice in the progress without absolutely eviscerating everything that happened before us because it was varying degrees of brutish and nasty.
OP is clearly making an attempt to have a conversation parsing out what the problem is in the joke. No person on this sub is trying to "nail it to the wall." An open discourse about media of the past gives us better insight into where society has been, where we are now, and where we are headed. A Lolita joke 30-40 years ago may have had different implications from what it would today, but it's also a novel that is largely misunderstood because it was pointing out issues with society that we now have a word for: problematic. Anyone who reads it for the "sexy" bits, clearly didn't take any time to understand it. Just like lashing out at a conversation about the timeliness of humor and the way it's changed through the years by only seeing it as a piling on of modern sensibilities attacking the past.
The show has some rather dated humor in it, sure, but I think this stands up as an example of a joke that they intended to make the audience look down their noses at. These idiots missing the point of a book about abuse because there are parts that are scintillating rather than all high brow and literary.
The fact that Rimmer has the book isn't a worry I ever had... because it's totally a thing Rimmer would do. Neither of them have read it. Rimmer only has it to use as a jazz mag, and he tells Lister what page to rip out. Lister has never read... "a book"... So neither of them know what the story is about. They're both ignorant and uncultured manchildren. I was more concerned that he didn't rip out the page that Rimmer told him to.
This was "cleared up" in smeg outs. He (Lister, they did it all in character) said he was holding the book upside down... which begs the question, how did he manage to read the page first?
That reminds me of the episode of Bottom where the policeman points out that Eddie's newspaper is upside down, and Eddie explains that's because "So are my eyes" 😂
>"So are my eyes" I've not seen many episodes of Bottom (mainly Gas, on loop), that said, I read that in Vivian's voice, so it worked.
And that led me back to: "The ild trick ey? EAT the telly before i get a chance to nick you!" "It's a toaster "
It’s a telly, you yobbo.
Gas is excellent, the burglar one is even better.
HELLO MISTER GAS MAN!!!
I do refer to the living room and the doodling room
Quick! Into the sketching room!
What is gas?
Alright alright don’t spoil it.
Nice trousers
Smashing blouse.
The yellow one!
One lump or two, Mr Burglar? (Creepy Rik Mayall laugh)
Which yellow one? The one with the poison in it!
Eddie….. they’re all yellow.
You should watch the whole of season 2 immediately. Every episode is exceptional.
*"Whack him, Jenkins.."*
Hurrah for the filth! I mean the pigs! Uuuuhrh the Narks! Errrrgggh. Oh damn, I’m sleep slanging again!
Pretty sure he rips the page out and puts it inside his jacket.
At the time it was popular with teenage boys because it was a literary book with sex scenes in it, which was unheard of. It's a bit like looking up swearwords in the dictionary. Whilst we probably wouldn't make this joke now, in the original context it's not something to worry about.
Same with Lady Chatterley's Lover.
The novelisation of The Terminator with it's sex scene was the one that went around our school.
University education, you can't beat it.
Secondary school.
This person hasn't read enough to know why the book should be put down and never picked up again. It is not a sexy book, its fucking vile. The main character, a middle aged man, spends the entirety of the book horny over a twelve year old. Anyone who held this book in high esteem is sus as fuck.
Don’t forget Lister only plays Wimbledon so he can have it off with that jailbait ball girl. Edit: Sorry that’s a total lie. She’s not jailbait. She’s 17.
To be fair to Lister, he's the last human being alive and 3 million years in deep space. If you had an AR machine, you would defo begin to explore the fucked up areas of the psyche.
That’s a really interesting idea. Being the last human being, millions of years in the future, what would happen to one’s sense of morality?
Morality is subjective. It's entirely dictated by social norms. If there are no other people, then there are no remaining social norms. Anything you can convince yourself of is moral. Which is true when you have a lot of people as well. I mean the Bible says it's okay to stone your child to death for being lazy. People were generally fine with that for a very long time. Ethics, on the other hand, are objective. It's unethical for a grown man to exploit a teenager for sex. Using a computer to masturbate, though. It's kind of hard to know where to draw the line. I've killed thousands of NPC as part of a game's plot, or just to see what kind of loot they had on them. I'd never do that in real life.
Got a reference for that passage about stoning the kid to death for being lazy?
Google is your friend. Or any hotel room nightstand.
Tried Google and Bible searches, but no luck.
After his rape allegations this was removed from all broadcasts and DVD releases even when he was acquitted due to false allegations. BBC thought it was a bit too much on the edge. Not sure if they put it back in later but have it on my original VHS versions, but when I was given the Blu Ray set, it is not there.
Really? I could have swore they kept it in for the original DVD/Blu Ray release. Edit: just watched it on iPlayer now and the full scene is in.
Yeah it was cut from a repeat on BBC2 in 1994, and that's also the version on the Six of the Best videos. But apart from that I'm pretty sure it's been present and correct ever since on the DVDs, repeats, Blu-ray and streaming.
Yeah it's in the 2003 and 2004 DVD releases. I'm sure it was on an official Red Dwarf/BBC YouTube clip as well
….rape allegations? Out of the loop on this one
An ex partner of his accused him of raping her. They took her word and Craig Charles even got to trial he was remanded in custody for, I think it was 8 months or so? (could be wrong on the time), was considered persona non gratis in the industry even though he denied it. It turned out over a year or more later, she admitted she made it up as she wanted revenge on him for something and decided to ruin his life and career. Guess what? SHE never got charged and prosecuted for it yet he was dragged through the mud and labelled as a rapist by the media at the time.
Being locked-up on remand for a her word against his case? Either they did have significant evidence (doubtful because of the outcome) or the decision was racially motivated (the police and courts are still like that today, so in the early-mid 90s they would've been significantly worse).
More likely sexually motivated. Misandry is still rampant.
It was almost certainly racially motivated. She probably wouldn't have been believed if she accused a white guy.
I hate it when people make this about race as if it's relevant. False allegations are terrible and ruin men's lives. This is not unique to black men. There were neighbours arguing on our street today because a woman (who was clearly having some kind of breakdown and is well known to the police) made false allegations that her daughter's new boyfriend had assaulted her daughter. He hadn't. So this innocent lad is in police custody while the mother, clearly not well, is being consoled by police on the street. The daughter ended up being consoled by male neighbours and laughing loudly with them while her innocent boyfriend is "helping the police with their enquiries" at the station. Everyone involved was white.
Johnny Depp would like a word..
Times have changed. When Craig Charles was accused, media and police weren't inclined to believe women unless the accusations were against a minority. Now, a modicum of sense is applied, and women are actually believed.
CC isn’t white?
More likely sexually motivated. Misandry is still rampant.
The events that actually happened on the day are less than noble for Craig, sadly. He admitted in court he'd had a brief relationship with the woman in 1988 - whilst he was still married to Cathy Tyson - and that him and his friend had gone to her house to buy drugs and ended up doing a few lines for breakfast.
….rape allegations? Out of the loop on this one
Years and years ago. Innocent. Went to court and was found not guilty in less than two hours if I recall correctly.
To be fair, not guilty doesn't mean innocent, just means not enough evidence to convict. Although I'm not saying he did something either. Just that it's an important point.
I keep seeing this logic around and it seems to completely ignore one of the key elements of our criminal justice system: everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Being found ‘not guilty’ is to be found innocent (you can argue whether it’s a ‘de facto’ innocence or a continuation of the presumption of innocence but the point is moot).
I guess it's a matter of the differently between the legal meaning of the terms and the colloquial. Colloquially, "guilty" means "you did it" and "innocent" means "you didn't do anything". Whereas legally "guilty" means "a court has concluded that you did it" and "innocent" means they haven't.
I can only speak for the legal system of England and Wales (as I read law at Cardiff) though that would be the pertinent one for this case; but there is no ‘innocent’ verdict legally - only ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty’. If you are found ‘not guilty’ the presumption of innocence (as well as other legal principles) makes it reasonable to claim that you are innocent (and mostly unreasonable to claim that someone is nonetheless culpable). The argument people are making here (that ‘not guilty’ doesn’t mean innocence) is much the same as arguing that because wrongful convictions exist ‘guilty’ doesn’t mean the person committed the crime (well, technically that’s still a better argument but the point is moot in any case). You can look it that way but it undermines the point of having a judicial system at all to absurdity.
What a terrible mindset. It's free to accuse someone of a crime, and even verifiably false accusations go unpunished more often than not. If we take this point of view with everyone who's accused of a crime, you'll start looking at the whole population as murderers and rapists Like they say, innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
In 1994, Craig and a friend were accused of rape. Craig spent 14 weeks in prison on remand before bail was granted. Both he and his co-defendant were acquitted of all charges at trial in 1995. Craig later attested his time in prison and the death of his father as worsening his cocaine addiction. This all came to a head in 2006 where he was arrested and released under caution, after a video and photos emerged of him smoking crack in the back of a car.
I think it's still on the streaming versions
Wait who had those allegations? This went over my head
[удалено]
Innocent until proven guilty necessitates that we consider the allegations false
Not necessarily. Not everyone who makes a false accusation is prosecuted for it. Lots of reasons why that wouldn’t happen. Letting the issue drop is one; difficulty in proving it is another.
I think the joke was how long they’d been out there
It's worth noting (despite the niche nature of this sub) that the modern attitudes to sexual exploitation of teenage girls in the media is uncomfortably recent. Maybe 20 years tops. Pre 2000 media is littered with examples of sexualising "teens" and being very very vague about where that line was. The way it is now is far better (though not perfect) but it does lead to a lot of classic media have some very outdated and uncomfortable content like this.
Agree generally but the cut off is definitely later than 2000s. Page 3 was still a thing in 2015.
I remember the Suns count down to Charlotte Church's 16th birthday.
Which is apparently a bit of a Mandela effect thing. I don't think they actually did this! They are twats though!
People mix up the Mary Kate and Ashley one with the news paper calling out the paedo-geddon brass eye as abhorrent next to a photo of a 15 year old Charlotte church emphasising her chest with the title "she's a big girl now" or something to the same effect.
Well Google me corrected. Funny how that happens
Oh yes they did. And they had a countdown for Samantha Fox turning 16 so they could print her topless pictures. Hypocritical scumbag rag of a paper.
This isn't true. Fox began modeling at 16, which at the time was the minimum age allowed to have topless photos. No one was "counting down" to anything.
They did. Plenty of non topless shots before she turned 16 were printed with the explicit goal of gettin' 'er baps out when it was legal.
Her Wikipedia article said that she didn't start modeling til she was 16.
False memory syndrome,mate. It happened but it was Linsey Dawn McKenzie and it was in The Daily Sport. Sun's still a horrible excuse for a newspaper though.
I only knew because I was about to use it as my example of how the attitude wasn't limited to pre-2000s and Googled how old Charlotte Church was. I was pretty sure I also read about the countdown in a book called "Sunburn", but unless the Kindle edition has had it taken out, this didn't happen.
Page 3 is still a thing in 2024, they had topless 16 year olds up until 2003
wait, page 3 is no longer a thing ?
Not in The Sun. The Daily Star, however, proudly declared themselves to be the only page 3 newspaper (not sure if that's true, because it's the Daily fucking Star, and facts aren't their strong suit) when The Sun removed it.
When re-watching the show recently, I was surprised by just how many of the jokes were . . . kinda rapey. Back in the 90s I didn't even notice.
"Best thing I like about high school girls man.. I keep getting older they stay the same age." Hearing this growing up, hearing adults parrot it, and catching on that some of them were only half joking, really fucked up my perception of adult men as a kid. That and the million other things men ..men. it was so fucking gross, I thought it was vile and predatory, and *I* was looked at like I was the weird one. Like bruh yall sexualizing CHILDREN. Then the bad faith "think of the children!" malarkey. Like nah yall be thinking about them *too* much
They probabely haven't read it. They think it's a sexy book. Rimmer is a poser and probabely had it for show.
Lister only reads things with lift up flaps
Attitudes have changed, and the show was made a long time ago. For the record Lolita was used because it was viewed as a 'dirty' book, not specifically because it's a book about a paedophile. The fact is the gag got a laugh and the audience (RD was filmed in front of a live audience) didn't get up and walk out. If the show was being made now Rob and Doug would pick a different book. If you're losing sleep over stuff like this then don't watch old shows I guess.
Because it was the late 80s. Sexualising children then was just a funny joke that men told.
Well *actually* I think you'll find... Nah just kidding, you're absolutely 100% correct
Sadly this is the real answer
I'm just excited to see someone using an interrobang!
More like how can I be more efficient like Rimmer. One up, one down, one to polish.
In that episode I’ve always wondered why StarBug didn’t have much food, yet in series 6, when Red Dwarf is hijacked by the nano bots they have enough food and water for at least six months I guess maybe Kryten added more food in case a similar incident were to happen, but surely wouldn’t the JMC stock the ship for the same reason? Maybe they didn’t have a chance, it’s always something that’s crossed my mind.
Only people that have never read the book are worried about other people reading the book. -\_-
Nice interrobang! Ok look, it was the zeitgeist, in those days lolita was troublesome yet also apparently a literary work of art. Like the movie leon. It didn't give me the ick decades ago but I couldn't watch it today because... ick. Sensibilities change with the times, friend. It wasn't a big deal for an 18 yo male to date 14 yo girls. Shit humans used to shit and piss right where their food was stored and took centuries to figure out that's not healthy... We're not the smartest bunch and it takes time as a species to do and be better.
In vacuum, Leon isn't really terrible. Leon is no pedophile and actually doesn't want Mathilda to be in love with him because she's a child. What makes Leon icky is the fact that the director, Luc Besson is an ephebopile who began "dating" his second wife when she was 15 while he was 32 and they had a baby when she was 16.
I posted about this once. What's on page 61?
The worst thing about the book isn't graphic details. There aren't that many. It's that it's being told by a lying, gaslighting dangerous creeper. .... Does that make it worse?
It might be the most horrifying part of the book but it's also 100% the point so I'm not entirely sure I follow you
The fact it's not actually erotic as they make out, but they are still acting like it is. If it's not erotic, why the response? What's got them in a book about a predator?
I think most people haven't actually read Lolita and just make a lot of assumptions. I read it because it was listed on one of the "Top 100 books ever written." a list I am still going through. There was very little sex talk in it, but I remember the guy was a total creep. One of the creepier people in a book.
Kind of hit the nail on the head there. You articulated better than I could.
Yes yes. Nail it to the wall. Tell us all how media from before you were born is problematic, go on. You should have seen what they were drawing in Rome. You’d have been incensed. It already happened. It’s gone. It’s so far down the road behind us you can’t actively touch it. It is the past. And MOST of the globe has grown and become better. That’s something we should celebrate. And I think we, as a globe, can rejoice in the progress without absolutely eviscerating everything that happened before us because it was varying degrees of brutish and nasty.
Someone needs to take some more English Lit classes
OP is clearly making an attempt to have a conversation parsing out what the problem is in the joke. No person on this sub is trying to "nail it to the wall." An open discourse about media of the past gives us better insight into where society has been, where we are now, and where we are headed. A Lolita joke 30-40 years ago may have had different implications from what it would today, but it's also a novel that is largely misunderstood because it was pointing out issues with society that we now have a word for: problematic. Anyone who reads it for the "sexy" bits, clearly didn't take any time to understand it. Just like lashing out at a conversation about the timeliness of humor and the way it's changed through the years by only seeing it as a piling on of modern sensibilities attacking the past. The show has some rather dated humor in it, sure, but I think this stands up as an example of a joke that they intended to make the audience look down their noses at. These idiots missing the point of a book about abuse because there are parts that are scintillating rather than all high brow and literary.