He's asexual? People who are have no sexual urges at all. They have no sexual orientation.
Umm, yes. Exactly. Dumbledore is never described (even in this interview, in which she insists until she is blue in the face that "sex" wasn't the issue) as having any kind of *sexual* urges.
DD being gay would obviously mean he felt attraction to the same sex. Also, we have no idea if he had sex with anyone. Who knows?
That's sort of my point: he's not "gay", he's asexual.
Actually, no it doesn't. Merope's love for Tom Riddle, Sr. led her to basically enslave him with love potion for awhile. Obsessive love has always been shown in the books to be bad. In fact, that was one point of the love potion in HBP: to show that obsessive love can be dangerous. Besides, how in the world would DD's love life come up in conversation with Harry? Harry didn't even ask what his own parents did for a living.
Obsession, in the books, has always been shown to be distinct from genuine "love". The "love" produced by the love potion, just like Merope's obsession with Tom Riddle, was false and destructive. To lump Dumbledore's homosexual attraction to Grindelwald in the same category is extremely dubious.
She promotes intolerance, bigotry, and homophobia? Honestly? You're whacked. I'm speaking as a person who jumps on anyone who shows any homophobia. She's none of those things. You're exaggerating a great deal to make your argument seem stronger, when all it really is is that you don't like the fact DD didn't get any as far as you know. Oh no! As far as we know neither did McGonagall! That must mean she hates heteros too! Sorry for the sarcastic tone, but it seems to be catching.
It's not about Dumbledore "getting any", it's about presenting an offensive stereotype of a gay man, and presenting her one, single, homosexual relationship as destructive. In this sense she actually does promote intolerance and bigotry. By presenting "homosexuality" as functionally identical to asexuality, by presenting her one gay romance as misguided youthful infatuation, she very, very clearly presents the idea that homosexual love isn't real love - just like the feelings produced by a love potion or Merope's insane, selfish obsession with Tom Riddle.
This is, in fact, a problem.
By itself, it's not so much of an issue, but when the woman is actually being applauded for having the "courage" to put a gay character in a children's book, she needs to be called out.
no subject
Umm, yes. Exactly. Dumbledore is never described (even in this interview, in which she insists until she is blue in the face that "sex" wasn't the issue) as having any kind of *sexual* urges.
DD being gay would obviously mean he felt attraction to the same sex. Also, we have no idea if he had sex with anyone. Who knows?
That's sort of my point: he's not "gay", he's asexual.
Actually, no it doesn't. Merope's love for Tom Riddle, Sr. led her to basically enslave him with love potion for awhile. Obsessive love has always been shown in the books to be bad. In fact, that was one point of the love potion in HBP: to show that obsessive love can be dangerous. Besides, how in the world would DD's love life come up in conversation with Harry? Harry didn't even ask what his own parents did for a living.
Obsession, in the books, has always been shown to be distinct from genuine "love". The "love" produced by the love potion, just like Merope's obsession with Tom Riddle, was false and destructive. To lump Dumbledore's homosexual attraction to Grindelwald in the same category is extremely dubious.
She promotes intolerance, bigotry, and homophobia? Honestly? You're whacked. I'm speaking as a person who jumps on anyone who shows any homophobia. She's none of those things. You're exaggerating a great deal to make your argument seem stronger, when all it really is is that you don't like the fact DD didn't get any as far as you know. Oh no! As far as we know neither did McGonagall! That must mean she hates heteros too! Sorry for the sarcastic tone, but it seems to be catching.
It's not about Dumbledore "getting any", it's about presenting an offensive stereotype of a gay man, and presenting her one, single, homosexual relationship as destructive. In this sense she actually does promote intolerance and bigotry. By presenting "homosexuality" as functionally identical to asexuality, by presenting her one gay romance as misguided youthful infatuation, she very, very clearly presents the idea that homosexual love isn't real love - just like the feelings produced by a love potion or Merope's insane, selfish obsession with Tom Riddle.
This is, in fact, a problem.
By itself, it's not so much of an issue, but when the woman is actually being applauded for having the "courage" to put a gay character in a children's book, she needs to be called out.
- Dan Hemmens