One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[sistermagpie]

> 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. 

Magpie:
No, it isn't the same as having sex on page. But what on earth does 
that have to do with Dumbledore being in love with Grindelwald? 
That's exactly what I'm challenging in what they're saying, that Ron 
liking Hermione or Lavender, or Molly and Arthur having 7 children is 
one thing, but Dumbledore being in love with Grindelwald is "having 
sex," as if you can't have a gay attraction without following them 
into the bedroom and watching them have intercourse even if 
Dumbledore and Grindelwald never did. I don't undersatnd that. If you 
don't want actual descriptions of sexual intercourse in YA books, 
well, you're still not going to be happy with YA at the moment. But 
not wanting explicit sex and not wanting Dumbledore (or anyone) to be 
gay are two entirely unrelated things. 

Since both Steve and Tonks were referring to JKR describing 
Dumbledore as "gay" and "in love with" Grindelwald or "infatuated" 
with him when they said sexuality had no place in the books, they 
seemed to be saying that "sexuality" actually didn't mean graphic 
sex. There was no graphic sex anywhere in JKR's answer. So where did 
she add sexuality?

Carol:
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.)

Magpie:
And none of that is any different with us knowing that Dumbledore was 
in love with Grindelwald. So it's not adding any sexuality to the 
books that wasn't there to begin with.

Carol:
> 
> 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).

Magpie:
Wait. I'm following you about how kids don't want to read about 
sexual relationships, but can wonder when Ron is going to figure out 
that he loves Hermione, or when they're going to kiss. But then 
Dumbledore being in love with Grindelwald--which is *exactly* the 
same as Ron being in love with Hermione or, perhaps more accurately 
since it was in the past, exactly the same as Merope in love with Tom 
or the Bloody Baron in love with the Grey Lady--must be sexual 
innuendo that goes over their heads (as people missed a lot signs for 
H/G and R/Hr anyway) or an explicit sexual relationship they're not 
interested in reading about? 

There still seems to be a premise here that Dumbledore/Grindelwald is 
about the mechanics of sex or dirtier or more graphic instead of just 
being the same but with two men. If sexuality=having sex on page, 
then Dumbledore and Grindelwald still aren't more about sexuality than
any other people in canon. 

-m