verrry few nobakov fans (that i've encountered, we're getting real anecdotal here) actually know why lolita was published, or even written the way it was written. all of nobakov's other works are perfectly functional explorations of prose and social engineering that don't sexualize any minors.
but lolita was written specifically to troll publishing house censorship, in a time when political censorship was especially rampant under the guise that censorship in general was 'to protect the public' from actual gross content, like sexualizing minors or harmfully objectifying women (also problems in the era). and there nobakov went a wrote an entire book that did just that, but used very specific wording that the censors couldn't claim any infraction against, *specifically to point out their hypocrisy* because the censorship was -never- about protecting any vulnerable castes it was always just for political control and oppression of ideas that ran counter to, well, the power structures of the time.
so not even lolita is about lolita, it was just a well-established author using his power and influence to try and help his country. political oppression often, if not always, uses actual social problems as facades under which to run their campaigns; so if a campaign for, say, a free-range ability to arrest anyone for any reason or even no reason at all is marketed as counter-terrorism, what it's actually doing is using peoples' fears of terrorism to enact a police state.
same, w/ censorship in a legal arena. even if we ever could make publication of sexualization of minors in cartoon media illegal, protecting real life victims of CP would only be the 'scare', not the actual cause or the actual problem getting solved, and then things would happen, like, if the creators of rick and morty ever got into any political arenas they'd be vulnerable to arrest and punishment since morty is technically a child and a few of those episodes are spicy. the showrunners for rick and morty are quite influential, and i don't know their politics but they don't deserve a vulnerability to jailtime just for making gross media; ESPECIALLY when gross media is made by artists all over the political spectrum, and not even always for the shock factor or laughs.
that's nothing to do with this website; i'm relieved all the cubporn got the takedown, and that's actually a big reason i returned, just as like my personal taste and boundary-setting and all that. even a user who is above age and wasn't abused, shouldn't have to sift through any content that so deeply disturbs them, and FA has a sort of brand to maintain so users can know what they're signing up for when joining. it's just good sense.