Harry Potter universe is part of the international gay conspiracy

[Triforcer]

For the sake of the precious time we used reading their romantic dialogue, I wish Rowling had made either Ron or Hermione (or both) gay. 

[Morat20]

For all we know, she may well have included that information about Dumbledore and decided to edit it out because - let's just hypothesise for a moment - a) it interrupted the flow of the story or even b) she was worried that it might be seen that she was saying "if you're gay you will make bad decisions therefore being gay is bad" and decided to avoid that controversy.  It's not like she ever avoided the subject of sex - book 5 through 7 had all sorts of unrequited love, jealousy and sexual frustration going on.  

Actually, I find that tidbit explains Dumbledore's flirtation with the more noxious elements of magic make more sense. I had wondered why he'd buy into that shit his friend was peddling, but realized that when you're in your early twenties, you'll get interested in a lot of stupid shit if it gets you laid by the current object of your sexual interest.

I think leaving it out was ALSO a good idea -- not to "avoid controversy" but because the whole damn point with Dumbledore in the last book was that no one knew the "full story" of Dumbledore's past and were just piecing it together in different ways, coming up with different views of him as a person in his own right, rather than a nebulous Mentor/Father/Authority figure. It was the final part of Harry's growing up when he saw Dumbledore -- his go-to, save my ass, always knew the answer guy -- as a flawed human being who made mistakes.

It made his relationship and flirtation with darker forces make more sense, in retrospect, but wouldn't have added much to the story -- the point was that Dumbledore, when he was Harry's age, made exactly the same sorts of mistakes as anyone else, and kept making mistakes all the way up to his death. It didn't really matter why he was listening to whats-his-face, and leaving some mystery and unanswered questions (for Harry, not the audience) was important.

[BigBlack]

Can I say that I don't want to hear about an old man's sex life or is that being oldmanaphobic?

It's reductivist to equate sexual orientation and one's "sex life".

And no, I don't think I'm just pouncing on a technicality here -- you see this double standard a lot, where people are fine with showing their kids expressions of heterosexual love, like The Little Mermaid, but if anything gay comes up, it's "whoa, I don't want my kids to learn about sex yet."  The implicit message being that gayness isn't every bit the multifaceted combination of love, sex, and sense of identity that straightness is.

I don't recall anyone complaining about the ending epilogue of Harry Potter 7, which implicitly involves heterosexual sex (The kids got there somehow, and it wasn't via a magical stork arriving 9 months after Ron and Hermione politely shook hands).  Nobody thinks twice about it - the end result being that heterosexuality is often treated by default as 'legitimate', tied into the natural cycle of life, whereas homosexuality is viewed through the lens of being tawdry and all about the naughty bits.

There was no outcry from parents that J.K. Rowling made two of her heterosexual pairings have sex offscreen between the last chapter and the epilogue.  The differing reaction to the two revalations speaks to the unconscious assumptions about what's 'normal' and what's 'deviant' in our society, and hopefully explains why I bust out the five-dollar smarmy words like 'hetero-normative' to describe the situation.

[lamaros]

Your response would be true if Calantus was talking about Dumbledore's sex life as a young man. But if Calantus was talking about Dumbledore's sex life as an old man then the comparison could also be with an old heterosexual couple. For Dumbledore is primarily an old character in the novels, and in this regard he exceeds the 'legitimate' in age as well as orientation. Thus I think it's unfair to just apply unconscious homophobia, (though it might be there - only Calantus knows).

It would be oldmanaphobic though. Yes. Society is generally 'oldpeoplesexphobic', just as it is homophobic.

I suspect J.K. kept this tidbit out of the novel because it would be entirely counter to the character she had constructed to all of a sudden bring him down from his godly tree. He is the smart, aloof, etc character and to give all of a sudden him a sexual life would really undercut that. His fallibilities are entertained towards the end of the series, it's true, but to bring him immediately back to the same level of everyone else (and I refer here to him having a complicated sexual aspect to himself, not the fact it's a homosexual one) would undercut this too sharply. Dumbledore is an asexual construction in the novel. Perhaps not an asexual person, but there's a difference between the two.

This very viewpoint probably buys in to religious ideas of chastity and purity as being better than sexual expression. Which is another kind of limited thinking if you ask me. But it's this thinking that JK kept in her book. If she was challenging anything she would have included it in the novel. But she didn't.

Thus she's either a coward or looking for more attention with the release of this information via the press.

Anyway. This is a stupid discussion and I feel sad I've contributed to it with anything other than green text.

[Morat20]

I suspect J.K. kept this tidbit out of the novel because it would be entirely counter to the character she had constructed to all of a sudden bring him down from his godly tree. He is the smart, aloof, etc character and to give all of a sudden him a sexual life would really undercut that. His fallibilities are entertained towards the end of the series, it's true, but to bring him immediately back to the same level of everyone else (and I refer here to him having a complicated sexual aspect to himself, not the fact it's a homosexual one) would undercut this too sharply. Dumbledore is an asexual construction in the novel. Perhaps not an asexual person, but there's a difference between the two.

WTF? Did you even read the last book?

The whole goddamn last book could have been entitled "JK Rowlings Kicks Fucking Dumbledore Off His Goddamn Pedestal And Lays Bare a Lifetime of Fucking Mistakes".

Rowling kept the tidbit out of the novel because it wasn't important to plot -- the fact that he listend to FuckNuts in his youth and did stupid shit WAS important to the plot (and was thus in the book), but the fact that one big reason he swallowed Fucknut's nitwitted shit was because he was also gobbling the dude's crank wasn't -- Harry wasn't supposed to get the full story, because a huge point of the plot was that NO ONE gets the whole story -- just bits and pieces to try to make sense of.

[lamaros]

I suspect J.K. kept this tidbit out of the novel because it would be entirely counter to the character she had constructed to all of a sudden bring him down from his godly tree. He is the smart, aloof, etc character and to give all of a sudden him a sexual life would really undercut that. His fallibilities are entertained towards the end of the series, it's true, but to bring him immediately back to the same level of everyone else (and I refer here to him having a complicated sexual aspect to himself, not the fact it's a homosexual one) would undercut this too sharply. Dumbledore is an asexual construction in the novel. Perhaps not an asexual person, but there's a difference between the two.

WTF? Did you even read the last book?

The whole goddamn last book could have been entitled "JK Rowlings Kicks Fucking Dumbledore Off His Goddamn Pedestal And Lays Bare a Lifetime of Fucking Mistakes".

Rowling kept the tidbit out of the novel because it wasn't important to plot -- the fact that he listend to FuckNuts in his youth and did stupid shit WAS important to the plot (and was thus in the book), but the fact that one big reason he swallowed Fucknut's nitwitted shit was because he was also gobbling the dude's crank wasn't -- Harry wasn't supposed to get the full story, because a huge point of the plot was that NO ONE gets the whole story -- just bits and pieces to try to make sense of.

Construction of Dumbledore as adult character != story of his youth
Dumbledore as Harry's idol as an old man (see 'Kings Cross Station' farce) != Kicked off his pedestal
Dumbledore's gifts from the grave != everything you said.

As I said there were two options. You're favoring coward (though you colour it with the excuse of being a bad writer). Fair enough.

[Margalis]

Hearing about the sex life of an old man would be something like this:

Sweat flew off of Dumbledore's brow in rythm with Hagrid thrusting into him from behind. "That's right" Dumbledore said, looking back over his shoulder and grinning, "I've been a bad boy at school."

Or something like that. I think Hagrid is male.

[Calantus]

Can I say that I don't want to hear about an old man's sex life or is that being oldmanaphobic?

It's reductivist to equate sexual orientation and one's "sex life".

I wasn't comparing his sex life to his sexual orientation. When you talk about an old man's past lovers it immediately makes one think of said old man having sex. This is not a pleasant thought for anybody except maybe old women, old gay men, and people with a mature fetish. I am none of these and thus went "ewww, old man sex, DO NOT WANT" inside my brain.

It also made me think of lemonparty. Thanks, internet.

I think Hagrid is male.

Was it the beard? It was the beard wasn't it?

[Morat20]

Construction of Dumbledore as adult character != story of his youth
Dumbledore as Harry's idol as an old man (see 'Kings Cross Station' farce) != Kicked off his pedestal
Dumbledore's gifts from the grave != everything you said.

As I said there were two options. You're favoring coward (though you colour it with the excuse of being a bad writer). Fair enough.

No, I'm not. I'm not surprised you're reading it that way, as you've decided there are only two options and seem hell bent on forcing me into one or the other even when I disagree. Kind of a pointless way to think, but if it works for you....

Dumbledore's sex life wasn't important for the simple fact that it is really rare for students to think about the sex lives of their teachers. Hell, until they're in their early teens it's generally a shock to most kids that their teachers have lives outside of school. The only time you catch students -- even 18 year old ones -- even putting "Sex" and "teacher" in the same vicinity is when their teacher is close in age (say, a 24 year old High School teacher).

She didn't leave it out because of cowardice, bad writing, or some attempt to keep him "asexual and godly". She didn't do it out of some attempt to keep from shocking the kiddies too much with his change from Mentor to Person (she didn't quite enough there, by pointing out he'd been rather invested in pure-blood thinking as a youn adult).

She did it because it wasn't something that would occur to her characters -- and what we read, we read through her character's eyes and understandings. Even 18 year old's as experienced as Harry simple won't think of teachers -- especially elderly teachers -- as ever having been sexual beings. Real 18 year olds don't think that way, unless the teacher happens to be 25 and smokin' hot.

It didn't come up in the book because it would NEVER have fucking crossed any of her characters minds unless someone else made it crystal clear -- and who the hell would? When would that have come up, all told?

[lamaros]

Dumbledore's sex life wasn't important for the simple fact that it is really rare for students to think about the sex lives of their teachers. Hell, until they're in their early teens it's generally a shock to most kids that their teachers have lives outside of school. The only time you catch students -- even 18 year old ones -- even putting "Sex" and "teacher" in the same vicinity is when their teacher is close in age (say, a 24 year old High School teacher).

I don't know what kind of crazy school you went to, but a cannot agree with that at all.

Regardless. There is a distinction constantly enforced between Dumbledore and all other people (read this as adults if you have to). This is what I'm talking about.

Oh, and sex and teacher is often discussed. See Hagrid, Lupin, Snape, etc, just from the top of my head.

[Ironwood]

My Crazy School, I think, because I mostly agree with him.

Possibly schools have changed in 20 years.

[Morat20]

I don't know what kind of crazy school you went to, but a cannot agree with that at all.

A fucking normal one. The sex lives of teachers didn't cross anyone's mind unless they were young and single (under 30, basically). And that was for students in the 17-18 range.

Even then, it was pretty much solely restricted to either 18 year old guys drooling over the VERY rare 24 year old hottie first-year teacher, and occasionally speculation about whether a certain teacher was dating another. Actual sex wasn't really an issue, since the average 16 to 18 year old was very preoccupied with who he/she was hoping to have sex with, and tracking whom his/her peers were doing.

Teenagers don't think about their teachers having sex because they're too busy obsessing about their own sex life and the sex lives of their social circle. There's enough fucking sexual drama there to keep them busy.

Regardless. There is a distinction constantly enforced between Dumbledore and all other people (read this as adults if you have to). This is what I'm talking about.

Bullshit. McConnegal's sex life wasn't dsicussed. Neither was Trelaney's, nor really any other teacher whose sexual interests weren't directly needed for the plot.

Oh, and sex and teacher is often discussed. See Hagrid, Lupin, Snape, etc, just from the top of my head.

Neither Hagrid nor Lupin were really unapproachable teachers -- Hagrid was a friend to the main characters (and his courting was used to establish some backstory on giants). Lupin's relationship with Tonks was well after his teaching, and part of Order of the Phoenix stuff. Snape's love for Lilly Potter was a fucking critical plot element, as it explained his entire motivations as a character. Why he turned away from Voldemort, why Dumbledore trusted him, why he was willing to do what he did.

Hagrid was the only actual teacher with a relationship AT Hogwarts when Harry was there. Snape's was in the past, and part of Harry's history. Lupin's was after he left, and tied up with Harry's future (the Order of the Phoenix). Even Hagrid's was tied up with Harry, because Hagrid was Harry's friend (and it got Harry a peak at dragons, IIRC)-- not really a teacher. The sex lives of teachers were ONLY ever brought up in how they impacted the main characters.

Dumbledore's boning guys, McConnegal's all-night lesbian affairs with Trelawney, and the fact that Snape was into hard-core S&M never came up because Harry wasn't paying attention, because he fucking didn't give a shit, because it had nothing to do with him.

Teenagers are self-centered, narcisstic little bastards. They don't lift their eyes from themselves or their immediate social circles unless they have to. They don't care about, nor think about, who a teacher is boning unless someone they know walks in on it, or the teacher is boning them.

[Roac]

What insulated schools most of you seem to have gone to.  I recall kids telling "johnny deeper" jokes going back to elementary school, or comments about hot teachers in middle.  Jokes about gay teachers was middle/high.  The joke factory went into overdrive if a teacher got pregnant.  And this is from... I think seven different schools, across three states (moved around a lot when I was younger). 

Not that any of that represented actual knowledge by anyone involved, but kids were certainly aware of the concept of teachers having lives. 

[UD_Delt]

What insulated schools most of you seem to have gone to.  I recall kids telling "johnny deeper" jokes going back to elementary school, or comments about hot teachers in middle.  Jokes about gay teachers was middle/high.  The joke factory went into overdrive if a teacher got pregnant.  And this is from... I think seven different schools, across three states (moved around a lot when I was younger). 

Not that any of that represented actual knowledge by anyone involved, but kids were certainly aware of the concept of teachers having lives. 

Seriously, I still definitely remember my 8th grade science teacher who probably had at least half the class (well at least the male half) at least a little tight in the pants. The same year my French teacher got fired for public masturbation. Then my freshman year of HS we had a teacher fired for boning one of the seniors. My junior year we knew all about how one of our teachers was getting divorced and knew exactly what comments to make to set him off completely, he later got suspended for punching one of my friends (the comment absolutely deserved the punch.)

[bhodi]

Can you guess which pundit may have overreacted a tiny bit?

You can't spell "Oh, not this shit again" without "O'Rielly".

[Paelos]

Can you guess which pundit may have overreacted a tiny bit?

You can't spell "Oh, not this shit again" without "O'Rielly".

As to his first point about her being a provacatour, we all questioned that. It's not that outrageous.

The second part about worrying whether the secular media is trying to suck your children into a gay agenda is beyond insane. They are your kids, you can raise them to hate whatever you hate or love whatever you love if you want. Stop sticking them in front of the TV and you might have a modicum of control over that.

[Ironwood]

As to his first point about her being a provacatour, we all questioned that. It's not that outrageous.

No we didn't.

[WayAbvPar]

It was easy to tell that O'Reilly was saying something douchey- his lips were moving. Pity his detractors aren't as batshit as those of Alan Berg.

[Paelos]

As to his first point about her being a provacatour, we all questioned that. It's not that outrageous.

No we didn't.

Fine not all, but the idea that she did this to create a stir was out there, and in this thread.

[HaemishM]

Can you guess which pundit may have overreacted a tiny bit?

You can't spell "Oh, not this shit again" without "O'Rielly".

And that's exactly why I said she was a media whore. Because anyone who has paid any attention to the media landscape in America in the last six years would know that saying a character in Potter was gay would draw this kind of reaction and this kind of media attention.

A provacteur? What kind of stupid word is that to use. Makes O'Reilly sound like he's calling out the KGB on her. Someone trying to get attention? Sure. Agent provacteur for the "gay agenda?" For fuck's sake, people, some things aren't conspiracies.

[BigBlack]

Can you guess which pundit may have overreacted a tiny bit?

You can't spell "Oh, not this shit again" without "O'Rielly".

And that's exactly why I said she was a media whore. Because anyone who has paid any attention to the media landscape in America in the last six years would know that saying a character in Potter was gay would draw this kind of reaction and this kind of media attention.

I don't think anyone is arguing she's ignorant of the reaction she was going to get.  But the backlash you know is coming shouldn't be a reason *not* to say something if it's accurate and true.  How is this any different than the argument that the Mohammad cartoons shouldn't have been printed due to the backlash they'd cause?

Frankly, I don't mind O'Reilly using the term 'the gay agenda' -- I think it's worth embracing, rather than shying away from it.  The gay agenda is the respect for the equal human rights and moral standing of gays and lesbians.  I'd hope we get kids hearing that agenda as early as possible, through school and through the media, whether their parents like it or not - the same way we do for tolerance of racial and ethnic differences and gender equality.

[Nevermore]

Because anyone who has paid any attention to the media landscape in America in the last six years

I highly doubt she's paid any attention to the media landscape in America, since she likely doesn't have much day to day exposure to it.  If I remember correctly, she doesn't even like the British media.  The only agenda being served here is that of the gay-bashers.

[HaemishM]

Because anyone who has paid any attention to the media landscape in America in the last six years

I highly doubt she's paid any attention to the media landscape in America, since she likely doesn't have much day to day exposure to it.  If I remember correctly, she doesn't even like the British media.  The only agenda being served here is that of the gay-bashers.

I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. This chick and her publicist has been all over the news for the last few years, for a goddamn children's book. It's impossible to say that she wouldn't have any day to day exposure to the American media.

[Roac]

A provacteur? What kind of stupid word is that to use. Makes O'Reilly sound like he's calling out the KGB on her. Someone trying to get attention? Sure. Agent provacteur for the "gay agenda?" For fuck's sake, people, some things aren't conspiracies.

I would point out here that O'Reilly is an attention whore.  It would satisfy previous complaints in this thread, but is I think, beyond obvious.

[HaemishM]

Yes, even bigger than Rowling.

[Nevermore]

Because anyone who has paid any attention to the media landscape in America in the last six years

I highly doubt she's paid any attention to the media landscape in America, since she likely doesn't have much day to day exposure to it.  If I remember correctly, she doesn't even like the British media.  The only agenda being served here is that of the gay-bashers.

I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. This chick and her publicist has been all over the news for the last few years, for a goddamn children's book. It's impossible to say that she wouldn't have any day to day exposure to the American media.

Individual media people?  Sure.  Does that qualify as having a working knowledge of the "media landscape in America"?  You get that by watching Amercian media, which I highly doubt she does.  Now her publicist should know, but it wasn't her publicist that answered the question and do you really think there was a meeting beforehand that involved said publicist saying, "By the way, whatever you do don't let out that Dumbledore is teh gay!"

If I were Rowling I'd have answered the question honestly too, and I wouldn't give a flying fuck what O'Reilly thinks about it.  What, is the book going to get banned now?  It's hilarious the amount of attention this is getting and the apoplexy it's causing when there's not a whiff of homosexuality in the books themselves.

[Ironwood]

Because anyone who has paid any attention to the media landscape in America in the last six years

I highly doubt she's paid any attention to the media landscape in America, since she likely doesn't have much day to day exposure to it.  If I remember correctly, she doesn't even like the British media.  The only agenda being served here is that of the gay-bashers.

I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. This chick and her publicist has been all over the news for the last few years, for a goddamn children's book. It's impossible to say that she wouldn't have any day to day exposure to the American media.

Sorry Mate, you're not correct.

I can quite easily see any UK person (even with a lot of interest in the American Psyche) just flat out answering that question like that without a second thought.

I fear I upset my American/Canadian relatives recently with some of my 'off the cuff' remarks.

Mostly about how morally bankrupt their Country was, but you can't win em all.

[eldaec]

British people cannot watch American TV news or current affairs. And you don't really get the fox news viewpoint from Friends reruns.

I mean, physically cannot watch, even when we happen to get access to it. The need to break for commercials about haemorrhoid medication every 7 picoseconds causes our brains to bleed out of our noses.



I'm convinced it's how you guys won independence in the first place.

[lamaros]

lol this thread.

[Engels]

When you talk about an old man's past lovers it immediately makes one think of said old man having sex.

When you talk about an old man's past wife/girlfriend, does it also immediatlely make you think of an old man having sex?

If it doesn't, consider the posibility that you're piling on sordid prejudice into the otherwise commonplace occurence of gay people being in love.

[Abagadro]

When I think of old gay guys, the only thing that comes to mind:









You need to be of a certain vintage to get that joke.

Thank you for your support.

[Margalis]

Is that the Bartles and James guys?

[Roac]

Is that the Bartles and James guys?

Yeah.  Not that old, I didn't think.

[Morat20]

Seriously, I still definitely remember my 8th grade science teacher who probably had at least half the class (well at least the male half) at least a little tight in the pants. The same year my French teacher got fired for public masturbation. Then my freshman year of HS we had a teacher fired for boning one of the seniors. My junior year we knew all about how one of our teachers was getting divorced and knew exactly what comments to make to set him off completely, he later got suspended for punching one of my friends (the comment absolutely deserved the punch.)

That was normal for the younger teachers. The older ones, not so much. Cutoff seemed to be about thirtyish, unless you had something like "pregnant" or "got caught fucking a student".

I can think of a few kids I went to high school with that probably DID make jokes about the sex lives of the 40 and 50+ set, but frankly those aren't the sort of kid that the HP main characters hung out with, much less got us a POV from.

[Margalis]

Is that the Bartles and James guys?

Yeah.  Not that old, I didn't think.

That's when you are old, when you are fondly remembering Bartles & James and playing Q-Bert while the people standing next to you don't even know what the Moonwalk is.