Wondering

[susanmcgee48176]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" 
<delwynmarch at ...> wrote:
>
> lizzyben wrote:
> > All I'm saying is that it gets slippery to sometimes refer to one 
> > group, sometimes to the other, without always making clear which 
> > group you're referring to - it tends to create the impression 
that 
> > there isn't a distinction, or that gays & pedophiles/ebiophiles
> > are in fact one and the same group.
> 
> Del replies:
> The thing is, though, that I *did* make that distinction, right from
> the first post. However, some people either ignored it, or didn't
> register it, or something, and so when they answered, *they* are the
> ones who started to equate/assimilate homosexuality and 
ephebophilia.
> Even now that I'm saying once again that "no, I don't
> assimilate/equate them or whatever", there are *still* people
> saying "yes you do, or at least that's what you think"!
> 
> > I'm basically just talking about the terminology, not 
> > even the underlying philosophical/moral issues.
> 
> I understand what you're saying, but I can only point out that 
that's
> what I've tried to do right from the beginning, by explaining my use
> of the terms gay (men who love adult men) and ephebophilia (men who
> love teenage boys). But this terminology was immediately dismissed 
in
> favour of philosophical/moral accusations that I was somehow 
equating
> the two.
> 
> So again, I understand what you're saying, but I feel like I did try
> and take all those precautions you mention. If you re-read my posts
> without projecting any preconceived profile on me, you'll see that I
> *never* equated gay with ephebophile. I always consistently argued 
the
> theory that the canon presents us with ephebophile!DD and not at all
> with gay!DD. Sure, when taken out of their contexts, some of my 
words
> can be made to mean pretty much anything. But that's not right, is 
it?
> 
> Del
>


Sorry, ya know folks, but I'm not buying this.

>From what other character have we suddenly jumped from a tidbit about 
their past lives, to the fact that they might be a child molester. 
(And by the way, Del, if you look carefully at the Wikipedia article, 
it's highly contested. The whole ephebeology thing has been suggested 
by one or two researchers. It's not accepted or borne out by research 
that there's this huge difference between child rapists who molest 
youths and child rapist who molest boys. In fact, contrary to public 
ideas, lots of child rapists molest both girls and boys. There were 
Catholic priests who molested girls. In the most recent Associated 
Press poll on teachers who were child molesters - showing a big 
coverup of that fact -- the majority of the teachers were male, and 
the vast majority of victims were female. They even talk about the 
fact that the most sensationalized cases are adult women molesting 
boys -- gosh, still not lesbian or gay -- but that they are in the 
vast minority. The number of same-gender molestations are so small as 
to be practically insignificant).

Anyway, JKR says DD was in love with or infatuated with GG, and that 
she thought of his as gay, and told a screenwriter he is gay.

Suddenly the message boards are filled with -- oh so that's why he 
spent so much time with Harry....suddenly we see convoluted arguments 
about how he probably lusted after good looking teenage boys...with 
some very spurious support from canon about Tom Riddle, Sirius not 
being punished (which I bet he was), etc. Also slimy comments about 
him being able to be invisible. You are of course entitled to your 
opinions, but in my opinion, evidence is practically non-existent.

No one has ever come with such a scenario about a straight person in 
the books. Strange.

Then we have the persistent ignorance -- someone just posted that JKR 
was asked a question about whether anyone was gay....the press in 
Toronto made reference to her "news conference."

(And who was it who made the comment about why didn't Harry flit 
around the castle and spy on young girls under his invisibility 
cloak, and that all young boys would do that? Sorry, but that's 
really anti-male. I know dozens of teenaged boys who are straight, 
and they're not voyeurs, nor do they take opportunity to spy on young 
girls. That's a pervert trick.)

The level of homophobia from about 5% of the fans is staggering.
Go to the Leaky Cauldron and read some of the comments.

So this coincidental, innocent portrayal of DD as a man who's 
infatuated with young boys has to been seen in a larger context.

Susan