Ginny - Not

[marion11111]

> 
> Kemper now:
> That scene bothered me because of the implied eroticism of it.  Okay, 'eroticism' may be too strong a word.  There's some flirtation/sensuality with Ginny feeding Harry, and that's cool.  But the scene with the shoestring is awkward/icky/weird to watch.  The image of a girl, vulnerable in a bathrobe, going down to(on) Harry's string, looking up at Harry when she's done... it's just odd.  
> 
> Tying a someones shoe, in her case, seems a maternal thing to do as well and this only adds to the ick.  It's like the director wants Harry to have the Madonna and the whore, when all Harry wants is Ginny.
> 
> Not sure if that makes any sense.  I'm going to go ahead and blame it on the time.  It's late and I'm making some bolognese for a camping trip; I have no grill skills, but I can turn on a Coleman stove.
> 
> Kemper
>

marion:

I'm glad someone else said something about this.  I don't think it's *implied* eroticism.  I think it's blatant!  I had completely forgotten that scene since I can't stand Book!Ginny and tend to just ignore all Harry Ginny shipping, but my jaw dropped when she did that in the movie.  And I wasn't the only one - there were snorts and giggles and even "ewwwww" sounds from all sides.

You can argue that it's innocent because Ginny wouldn't have thought of it that way.  Well, Ginny is a fictional character and that scene was written, filmed and directed by real life adult men who knew very well what they were doing.  I suppose it's a way to show Harry's increasing sexual tension around Ginny (chest monster anyone?), but Honestly!  it was just icky.  I think maybe it was also supposed to be funny, but the giggles in the theater were giggles of discomfort and embarrassment.