One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[Carol]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie"
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > > > Tonks:
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think [sexuality] has any place in a children's book.
> > > > And even if adults are reading it and the reading level has
> > > > changed since book 3, it is still a book read by children of
> > > > age 8 and up. 
> > > 
> > > Magpie:
> > > Well, HP is pretty obviously YA at this point ..., but I 
> > > assume this part doesn't have to do with DD being gay and 
> > > instead you're disapproving of all the sexuality that's 
> > > actually in the books? 
> 
> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > Certainly Dumbledore's sexuality has no place in the books
> > because it's not really part of the story. The only thing
> > that matters in the story is the Dumbledore and Grindlewald
> > had an intense personal friendship that somewhat blinded
> > Dumbledore to Grindlewald's true nature. The details are 
> > irrelevant. 
> > 
> > And that is precisely why it is NOT in the books. You see 
> > no references to Dumbledore's sexuality in these books;
> > because it doesn't matter; it doesn't in anyway move the
> > story forward. 
> 
> Magpie:
> It doesn't move the story forward *because* it isn't there. It 
> certainly does have something to do with the plot. As much as plenty 
> of other romantic relationships. His relationship with Grindelwald 
> was romantic, at least on his part, and that affected his 
> motivations. Or would have, if it were part of the story and 
> therefore canon. Just like Merope's feelings towards Tom Riddle and 
> Hagrid's towards Maxime affect the plot. Because they're there. 
> Dumbledore's love of Grindelwald isn't any less important than any 
> other romantic relationship in canon, and considerably more so than 
> many of them. Or would be, if it were included. As it is now it's 
> about as important as Harry's romantic relationship with Luna--iow, 
> non-existant afawk. Harry's attraction to Cho affects his behavior 
> for two books. I can't say for sure, but it's very hard for me to 
> imagine, if Grindelwald was a woman, that it wouldn't have been 
> presented as romantic with no protest whatsoever.
> 
> Steve:
> > 
> > For that matter, no sexuality really appears anywhere in
> > the books. Oh yes, attractions and potential relationships
> > to appear vaguely in the books, but not in any depth and
> > not in anyway other than comic relief. 
> 
> Magpie:
> Um...WHAT? Attractions and potential relationships aren't sexuality? 
> And they're only "potential?" (Wonder where all those kids come 
> from!) They only "appear vaguely?" The appear quite clearly ALL OVER 
> the place and not only as relationships, sometimes just as 
> expressions of purely physical attraction--good old fashion 
> heterosexuality at work. And they are not always comic relief. And 
> why would Dumbledore's sexuality need to appear in any more depth 
> than the other ones are presented in? What do you mean by depth, 
> exactly?
> 
> Steve:> 
> > So Tonks, you seem to have gotten your wish, Sexuality is
> > not part of these books.
> 
> Magpie:
> Only if she has a very odd view of sexuality that somehow doesn't 
> include, you know, sex and sexual attraction. Heterosexuals have a 
> sexuality too. As do married people.
> 
> Steve:> 
> > Sexuality only came up because a fan specifically asked JKR
> > about Dumbledore's love life. Some one asked, JKR answer.
> > This isn't a fact that she hid, no one every asked her
> > before. Though in all fairness, she might have had to 
> > fudge the answer a bit if she was asked before Deathly
> > Hallows came out. Certain details would have spoiled an
> > important plot point. So while I suspect she would have
> > answer, I suspect, to protect her plot, her answer would
> > have been vague. 
> 
> Magpie:
> Actually, sexuality came up when JKR wrote people who had babies in 
> her books, and people who fell in love and got crushes on other 
> people, and had relationships and on and on. I gave a big list in my 
> earlier post and that wasn't even everybody. 
> 
> People have been asking JKR shipping questions for *years.* How come 
> it's only when the answer is m/m that sexuality has come up? She's 
> been pretty broadly hinting about R/Hr for a long time, and happily 
> talked about Neville potentially marrying Hannah Abbott and Luna 
> marrying some guy and Harry and Ginny being soulmates. She's not 
> saying they're golfing buddies here. How is she not introducing 
> Neville's sexuality in saying he marries Hannah as much as 
> Dumbledore's in saying he liked Grindelwald? 
> -m
>
Carol responds:
Not even the Victorian objected to the implicit sexuality involved in
marriages that produced children (though they used euphemisms to get
around the word "pregnant") and even Dickens' characters engaged in
flirtation and an occasional chaste kiss.

You seem to be using "sexuality" to mean "sexual attraction" (and,
occasionally, sexual preference). Others are apparently using it to
mean the depiction of sex itself (or anything beyond "snogging" and
fully clothed groping). FWIW, here's the Merriam-Webster definition of
the term:

sex·u·al·i·ty <snip> 
Function:
    noun 
Date:
    circa 1800

the quality or state of being sexual: a: the condition of having sex
b: sexual activity c: expression of sexual receptivity or interest
especially when excessive

It seems to me, though I could easily be mistaken, that the use of the
term by bboyminn, Tonks, and others is closer to the dictionary
definition than your use of it, or at any rate, certainly equally
correct. We're just having a problem with semantics here. *Of course*
pregnancy, "snogging," and sexual attraction are depicted in the
books, especially the later ones, and even childbirth is referred to
in relation to Merope and her son, Tom. But that's not the same thing
as having sex on page (the Hogwarts students don't even have it
off-page, as far as we know. Hermione and Ron spend most of the school
year together (with Harry as a chaperone of sorts, or at least an
uncomfortable third party on occasion) and don't get beyond hugging or
holding hands until the end of the book.

Any sex in the HP books is off-page and implied, for example, in the
case of Merope and Tom Riddle Sr. No one in the books actually refers
directly to sexual intercourse in any form (though, of course, the
association between passionate kissing and sex is present in the mind
of any adult reader. Ten-year-olds, OTOH, probably want to get past
the kissing scenes as quickly as possible and don't identify with them
at all.) And I, for one, think that most young readers and their
parents prefer not knowing about the teachers' or the students' sex
lives. (Did Remus agree to marry Tonks because she talked him into
having premarital sex and then told him she was pregnant? I don't want
to know, and I'm sure most parents don't want their kids to know. The
relationship between love and sex, which don't always go hand in hand,
is too complex for a child's immature understanding, IMO.)

Obviously, we can't hide the existence of sexual attraction from kids.
They know about it already. But most kids fourteen and under (I wish I
could say sixteen and under) aren't ready for sexual relationships of
their own and really don't want to read about it, in my experience.
They may wonder when Ron is going to figure out that he loves Hermione
and when they're going to kiss, but they're mostly worried about other
things--like whether Harry's going to survive (or, in the earlier
books, what kind of detention Harry is going to get from Snape) and
most of all, in what happens next. Sexual innuendoes (including the
sly reference to "Equus" in "King's Cross" and the possibility of a
romantic relationship between DD and GG) go right over their heads.
Or, at least, that's my experience with regard to young readers
(fourteen and under).

Carol, interested in learning the reactions of various posters'
children to the "snogging" and occasional sexual innuendoes in the books