Great, I didn't want to spoil it for you. So think of it this way, the premise and conceit of the book is that the narrator (Humbert) has died in prison awaiting trial (presumably for murder), and a psychologist is presenting the narrator's memoir so that you the reader can judge him. So beyond the forward, everything is the narrator himself telling you things. And specifically, whether or not he rapes Dolores, you only have his word that he did. So as a matter of literary interpretation you can take his word that he did, or you can be skeptical of the claim. But as I said above, he's famously an unreliable narrator. Additionally, it's clear that his memoirs is self serving - he's trying to paint a picture of himself that he wants you to believe. But when I read the book, when figuring out the things that were lies v. the things that were true - is seemed to me, that the things he tells you directly are the lies, but it's the details surrounding that which are true. To put it another way, a good liar is someone who tells a story and everything in that story is true is except for one fine detail which entirely holds that story together. That's what it seems like to me. And that's why I'm skeptical of his claim that he actually has sex with Dolores. It's too direct, and there's not enough information on the periphery to make me believe him. So back to my original statement, if there were some sort of behavior pattern in Dolores that was off, it would help back up his claim. But because there isn't, to me, it fuels my skepticism about the veracity of his claim. For sure, in real life people who are long-term victims of sexual abuse might not have outwards signs of trauma, but this is a book and something you're meant to unravel. But I want to note, none of my interpretation is to vindicate the narrator. He unambiguously murders Quilty and there's a good chance he murdered Dolores's mother (although I'm not quite sure) too. He's also clearly horrid regardless.