That guy defending the book in the comments by going 'he is 19, I also thought the same when I was 19 and only realized later that he was intended to be the bad guy'. Oof... (And double oof as his comments goes from 'I didn't get this message at 19, and now 15 years later, I get why others dislike the book, without really making it 100% clear that he himself also considers Humbert the bad guy. (In the few times I had the misfortune of talking to pedophiles, this is the type of squirrelly language they use. Not that this means the person is a pedophile, I assume he isn't and just expresses himself poorly there, he just gives off a dodgy feeling with that one comment. Anyway, think the devil has enough lawyers).

Edit: I would esp be wary of playing devils advocate for somebody who writes this in their design document:

Afterword 1

There are three kinds of beauty:

[ first kinds excluded ]

Beauty by perversion. In "The 120 Days of Sodom", the main characters liked to play weddings where the male groom was dressed up like a female bride, while the female bride was dressed up like a male groom.

That is a very odd example to pick from that book. Certainly considering everything the past few decades.

(I have no opinion on the language itself, didn't even look at it as I don't really think creating new languages is that interesting. I'm always reminded of the XKCD competing standards comic).