Talk:Nymphet

This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

I clarified the definition. A nymphet is not just "a young adolescent girl", but specifically a young adolescent girl being viewed in a sexual manner. The background information on its origin from the protagonist of Lolita helps provide more context on the nature of the term. --4.246.3.43 04:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clarify the definition even more and have been reverted twice. Instead of getting into an edit war I thought I should give my reasons for thinking the definition needs more tweaking and I hope that whoever reverted me can join in this discussion. The problem I have is with the word "sexualized." That word implies that the girl is made to look sexual by some outside force. Like for example, the way little girls are made to look "sexy" in Little Miss Beauty Pageants, like JonBenét Ramsey or the girls in Little Miss Sunshine. Not only do most dictionaries not use the word "sexualized" to define "nymphet", but I believe that it is not what Nabokov meant either. Humbert was attracted to nymphets, not because they were made to look sexy, the way a woman is made to look sexy if she becomes a model, but because of the way they naturally are. They were young girls that showed precocious sexuality on their own, not because they were "sexualized" (made to look sexy). Also I think it should be pointed out that a nympholept that sees a nymphet and thinks she is attractive, is not "sexualizing" her just by his act of feeling attracted to her. Wouldn't saying a nympet is a "sexually attractive or precocious pubescent girl" be more accurate? It is also how the term "lolita" is defined which basically means the same thing. Ospinad 02:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us the 2 alternatives, specifically, that we can debate on? SqueakBox 18:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did. My suggestion was to put it as "sexually attractive or sexually precocious pubescent girl," or something along those lines. That's basically how it's defined in most dictionary's and it's how the term "lolita" is defined here on wikipedia. Ospinad 19:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the definition of nymphet has changed since nabokov first wrote Lolita, that's what happens with words over time, their meanings change. I am still tiffed that I had numerous sources for the "nymphets in culture" list and someone DELETED all my HARD work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.229.91 (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faunlets in culture

While I have managed to find sources for the nymphets on the list, i have yet to find any sources for the faunlets. Could someone help me out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.7.249.68 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

List of actors

Why did whoever did it take off the faunlets in culture and nymphets in culture?? That would be like deleting all the sex symbols on the page of sex symbols. Get real.

I've just redeleted the list. If references are provided showing a third party calling these people "nymphs" (possible) or "faunlets" (fat chance) then it can be replaced, otherwise it's original research and is not allowed according to the verification policy.
brenneman ^{L} 00:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who REposted the list, all I did was alphabetise it, I didn't even add any names to it. All of the girls who were on the nymphet list are regarded by many people as sexuallly attractive adolescents. All of the boys were on the faunlet list are likewise regarded by many people as sexually attractive adolescents. But whatever. It's like taking all the sex symbols and deleting them.

Many of the young women and men who assembled the "faunlet" and "nymphet" lists are also on the sex symbols list on this site.Lingonberry 22:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First let me apologise if my bolding of "re" seemed personal, it was not intended as such. The question is, do we have even a single instance where these people are referred to by this name as that is what is required to meet our fundemental policy on unbiased inclusion.
brenneman ^{L} 23:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got one: most of the faunlets and nymphets mentioned are on amiannoying.com's lists of Lolitas and faunlets. Most of the nymphets that were mentioned have/had many websites devoted to their "jailbait sexiness." Most of the faunlets are just generally considered faunlets because they're considered especially sexually attractive for their ages.

Urk. I can't explain this any more clearly "just generally considered" isn't the criterion. I'm unable to see amiannoying as a reliable source by any stretch. The guidelines about verification, citation, and sources all explain this more eloquently than I do.
brenneman ^{L} 05:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I'm not trying to be disagreeable. But none of the sex symbols are cited, they're all "generally considered" too. On the VFD debate page, one person says that the list of actors/musicians isn't POV since it fits the definition of what a nymphet/faunlet is, and I agree, just like all the sex symbols fit the definition of what a sex symbol is.

Having looked at the list in the history page, i can only say that the list of nymphets was clearly deeply based on personal taste, and lack of real understanding of the subject, as the only one i saw that would have any relation to the word Nymphet would be Natalie Portman. I personally consider both Dominique Swain and Sue Lyon as complete miscasts in relation to the descriptions made in Nabokov's book.

And then, when looking at the list and finding a whole bunch of blond American actresses and models, i find myself wondering personally how anyone creating a list of media nymphets can forget one of the most important media icons in Europe who found herself at the core of the subject with her hit song Moi... Lolita, Alizée.

Why wasn't Alizée on the list? Because in my opinion there was absolutely no valid excuse for that.Frits van Houten 13:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because no verifiable source claims her to be. If you were to add it, it would constitute as original research and hence that edit cannot be accepted. Same reasoning goes to why her photo cannot be used in this article, as even if not explicitly stated, it means she is be attributed as a Nymphet. --so U m y a S ch 18:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, no photograph can be accepted. Alizée's first single is titled "Moi Lolita" . She has been called Lolita de la France. She has been named nymphet in various international articles. Alizée did not pose as THE Lolita, but as A Lolita.

If Alizée is not allowed to be representing an example of a nymphet, then who does? Before i made a few edits here, there was a poster of a film wich had absolutely no real reference to the subject other then a vaguely related story.

I agree ofcourse that relating one girl to this subject is not objective. Therefore i suggest no photopraphy at all. Frits van Houten 20:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep, i agree to your last statement. Thats why I removed the pic. --so U m y a S ch 18:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered this page quite crucial in my research for my postgrad MA. And the list of possible 'nymphs in culture,' although subjective did allow for an understanding of what may be perceived as a 'lolita'figure. This was important as I was discussing objectification and perversion. In short I understand that pics should be discouraged but I do not agree with any information being censored, just because it may offend some sensibilities. None of the comments or descriptions were sexual and merely indicated a general perception. I suggest we re-re-include the list on the basis that it allows us to gauge how these people are 'perceived' even if we in general do not.

The list was not crucial. It was filled with your averige women that held no relation to the term nymphet. Nabokov's Lolita is basically the only source as to the concept of nymphets, and it is quite critical about what is and what isn't a nymphet. Suggesting that Natalie Portman was a nymphet in "The Professional" would show that you know where to look for when searching for media-Nymphets. Not including Alizée showed a great serious lack of understanding where to look. It is not personal opinion to suggest them, as anyone who has read Nabokov's book can see that the looks for Natalie in "The professional" and Alizée in Moi... Lolita were based on the descriptions made by Humbert in Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita. Frits van Houten 14:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sex symbols look alike, and as such, not all nymphets look alike, either. Humbert's descriptions of a nymphet were his preferences in a nymphet, not really a generalized the description; the dictionary definition is "a pubescent female considered sexually attractive," and the young women on that list all fell under that definition.

Unrelated information.

I removed the bit about child sexuality, since it doesn't have any real connection to the term "nymphet", and is basically a topic on it's own, and the same goes for the Police song and the movie picture.

I also changed the first line wich said that nymphets are prepubecent girls. This information is incorrect, as when reading Nabokov, it is stated by Humbert that Nymphets are girls in the early days of puberty, roughly around the ages 11 to 14.

Prepubecent makes it sound as if nymphets are undeveloped children, and that just is not the case. The whole foundation of the concept and Nabokov's story, is that a nymphet is not a child and not an adult.

Unecessary censorship.

This page is constantly being reduced, instead of being expanded and discussed. This subject however disturbing to some of greater sensitivity, is an important aspect of understanding, not just Nabokov's book but also a huge slice of Japanese culture and also an underlying aspect of sexuality. I understand we must only include info relating directly to the term 'Nymphet' but the information deleted was in no way detrimental to the article and gave the subject and definition greater depth. Please lets make this Wiki better, not subject censorship. R3X.

The whole article about child sexuality was removed not because of cencorship, but because it holds no relation to the term 'Nymphet', and is an entire different topic on it's own.The awnser is quite simple: Puberty.

Nymphets are girls in the early days of puberty. Nymphets are not children. While they certainly are not adults yet, they are not children in the sense that their sexual behaviour is directly related to puberty. This is why the topic of child sexuality holds no relation to the topic of nymphets, as the concept of child sexuality is based on sexual behaviour BEFORE the onset of puberty, and is therefore not related to this topic. - Frits van Houten 13:40 31, May

That is fair enough, but I reiterate we should try and expand this wiki to incorporate other interpretations of the nymphet in subsequent works or films as long as they are DIRECTLY related to the term nymphet. Ihave begun to research this and I am sure we can find external sources to link to or at least quote that have used this term in this context.... R3X.

I must point out that the term nymphet, as coined by Nabokov, covers the ages of nine to fourteen only, and not only that, but as coined by Nabokov, it is a subjective label - only a nympholept can actually discern a nymphet. The list of alleged nymphets should not be here. None of the listed persons, irregardless of their having or not having been labeled "nymphet" by any publication or individual (other than Nabokov), are or were actually nymphets. There is no definition of the term other than that given in the novel. Implying that the ridiculously old (in the context of the term) maids on this list are nymphets misleads the reader into believing that a nymphet is any attractive woman younger than the individual observing her. The only criterion that makes any sense at all in judging who is a nymphet in popular culture would be that an actress or model plays a sexualized role or appears in a clearly sexual pose or position while she is between the ages of 9 and 14. I believe this would cover Natalie Portman and possibly Jodie Foster (don't know how old she was when she did Taxi Driver), and that's it. Lohan, Duff, Aguilera, Brooks, et al are simply women, because they did not enter the limelight until well out of the specified age range. Even Lolita herself is not called a nymphet once she exceeds 14 years old. eae 07:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, BUT they weren't referring to all of them at their current ages; Mischa Barton was a nymphet when she was younger, not now. Same with most of the girls on the list. P.S. wikipedia requires sources, all of which were put on the list, but whatever. I respect your view.

Uh, no.

It's a POV term. If you link to a newspaper story where someone calls Jodie Foster a slut, it's still not okay to put her in a list entitled "Sluts in Hollywood." If you want to rework the list as "Instances of Popular Actresses Being Described as Nymphets by Movie Reviewers" and listing the reviewer judgments rather than citing them as grounds for applying the term as a category yourself, that would be fine.

However, I think you've clearly found enough sources to show that the word "nymphet," like "Lolita" as a general term, is now commonly applied to mature women rather than to tweens as it was originally meant. You may want to add a sentence to that effect.

Dybryd 18:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that the word "nymphet" was derogatory like the word "slut" is. So are you saying now that the list isn't original research? I'm still not sure what you are suggesting we can do to improve this. I thought that the citing of the source made it obvious that it were those sources that were describing them with that word, so is it really a necessity to make it explicit in the section title? Putting "...Described as Nymphets by Movie Reviewers" in the section title would just be superfluous. Can you give me more examples of what you think can be done to improve it? Ospinad 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's derogatory or not, it's an evaluation. Someone up above said getting rid of the list of nymphets would mean getting rid of the list of sex symbols. Well, as it happens there is no List of sex symbols, List of attractive women over 40, List of ugly people aged 18-34, or any other equivalent. Dybryd 20:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried going straight to the sex symbol article? You can see dozens of them listed most of whom are not cited. For example,

Film's Golden Age sex symbols include 1930s stars Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo, Jean Harlow (the 'Platinum Blonde'), Mae West and Clark Gable. 40's and 50's icons Brigitte Bardot, Diana Dors, Ava Gardner, Betty Grable, Rita Hayworth, Audrey Hepburn, Veronica Lake, Sophia Loren, Jayne Mansfield, Marilyn Monroe, Kim Novak, Jane Russell, Elizabeth Taylor, Lana Turner, Mamie Van Doren, Marlon Brando, James Dean, Rock Hudson and Robert Mitchum.

and that's not even half of the ones listed on that page. Besides, this is not a List of nymphets article we are talking about, we are talking about listing a few examples of nymphets in the already existing nymphet article, just like there are examples of sex symbols in the sex symbol article. And just to make sure I understand you correctly, you don't think anymore that the list is original research if the examples are sourced, correct? Ospinad 17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the (quite good) article from American Sexuality you linked, I notice that the writer believes "only pedophiles believe in the existence of nymphets." We have no reason to endorse this sweeping judgment (especially given that the term is now applied mostly to adult women in their twenties!), but I think the statement clearly shows that to try to ascribe any objective status to it is POV. We can report the judgments of others as the judgments of others. Dybryd 20:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

none of the women on that list were referred to as nymphets past teenage. Some (like Brooke Shields, for instance) just happened to be on the list and are currently older than teenage. The term "nymphet" was applying to them when they were teenagers--all of them had entered the public spotlight in their teen years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.229.91 (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the book Lolita doesn't Humbert say that only a nympholept can discern nymphets from other "normal" girls? Besides, like you said, even if the term was originally meant to only be applied to young pubescent girls, that term isn't limited to describing those age ranges anymore. So I don't see a problem with the examples in this list being being young women and not young teens.

"We can report the judgments of others as the judgments of others."

Obviously. The fact that all the examples were sourced meant that it were those sources that called them nymphets, and not the opinion of Wikipedia itself. Ospinad 17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, I didn't reply to your latest because I didn't think you'd raised any further substantive points. I'm not sure what else to say to further discussion. You are correct that Sex symbol contains a lot of nonsense -- and, accordingly, it has tagged for reference and cleanup for the past year. I'm not going to clean up that article because I don't care about it, but as a fan of Nabokov, I have an interest in this one, and prefer to see it kept in better shape.

A further note, which may serve as a general guide to citation on controversial topics. If I write "George W. Bush is fool and a rogue" (or "a brilliant statesman") and source this judgment to a speech by Hillary Clinton (or one by Laura Bush), I have not successfully achieved NPOV!

Sourced information in encyclopedia articles is not supposed to represent the source's particular point of view -- it is supposed to represent an authoritative consensus. When describing points of view, we describe them as points of view, for example saying "George W. Bush has been harshly criticized by his political opponents," and then sourcing that. Dybryd 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a funny way of twisting things. First of all, I never said that the sex symbol article had a lot of nonsense. All I said was that it had many examples that weren't sourced. I think it probably could be organized better but I don't think what is there is nonsense. They seem to think that all of those examples of sex symbols would be ok as long as they were sourced. You seem to think that examples of nymphets are not exceptable even if they were sourced, simply because it's an evaluative statement. Which is just rediculous. "Nothing to respond to?" How about answering the question that I've already asked you twice, which is how can a list of nymphets still be OR even when they are sourced, which was your first reason for removing the list. Or explain to me how a picture of this woman can be used as an example of the epitome of beauty without being POV? Ospinad 17:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't. This is another example of a POV problem in an article I don't care about fixing. Dybryd 04:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers

This article makes numerous references to a single book, the first edition of Nabokov's The Annotated Lolita (introduced and annotated by Appel). Until 10 minutes ago, it didn't even start to say where among the lxxxvi +441 pages any of these referred to (or indeed whether it was Nabokov or Appel who was speaking). I've identified two of these; more needs to be done. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of information

It's pretty clear from reading the novel that being a nymphet is about precocious puberty and being sexually desirable, however there is no mention of it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.198.222 (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]