Wondering

[delwynmarch]

susanmcgee wrote:
> For someone who doesn't believe a theory, you seem remarkably 
> persistent in defending it. I wonder if it's just a way of putting 
> something out, and then attempting to evade the consequences of your 
> statements. Just my opinion.

Del replies:
Oh man! Do you *always* have to look for hidden motives?? I put out a
theory, it gets misinterpreted, I try and correct the
misinterpretations, and that means I'm somehow trying to get some
hidden message out or something?? Sheesh! Have you ever heard of
theoretical debates? One puts out a theory, others discuss it, the
theory gets supported or invalidated, new elements of discussion come
up, new theories are born, and so on. 

> Anyway, when one teenager falls in love with another teenager, or 
> becomes infatuated with another teenager, that doesn't mean that in 
> later life, that person will always remain infatuated with 
> teenagers.

And I never said so. I *never* presented this as a rule. I was
discussing the *particular* case of DD. 

> Snape is far more likely to let certain boys "off" (the Slytherins) 
> than DD is....and I could certainly cite chapter and verse of that.
> But because we found out that SS was in love with Lily, no one has 
> suggested that he is luster after children and/or youth.

No need for him to be in love with anyone: the very fact that the
people (not just boys) he's letting off are characterised by the fact
that they are all Slytherins (his own House) is enough to indicate the
reason behind his actions: House favouritism.

> Being fixated on people under the age of 18 is to be a pervert. Even
> if you don't act on your "feelings", sexual attraction to children 
> or to youths IS morally wrong. Disgusting.

I disagree. An adult falling in love or being attracted to, say, a
fully-formed 16yo is not perversion: it's Nature. Youth, especially in
females, is one of the main components of sexual attractiveness.
Puberty is Nature's way of saying "this one is physically ready for
reproduction" and thus implicitely for sex. Just because our modern
Western society recognises that being ready for sex includes more than
just being physically ready, doesn't mean that those who react the way
Nature intends them to, by being attracted to people who are
physically ready for sex, no matter their age, are perverts. 

> I just keep wondering why this theory suddenly came up when JKR 
> responded to a question and said DD was gay. It just seems so 
> coincidental to me.

I explained in another post that it is not at all coincidental.

> I guess I do wonder about your personal views of lesbians and 
> gays...since if you stated them, you would be letting yourself in 
> for criticism. (being a masochist I think you said).

Yes I would be "letting myself in for criticism", because my views are
not perfectly exactly aligned on what is currently politically
correct, and it's been made pretty clear on this list that anything
other than the current politically correct beliefs is not good enough.
So since I can't give you the ONE answer you would consider as
acceptable ("I totally completely agree with you 100%"), what's even
the point of explaining my views? You're going to bash them anyway.

> because ya know normal implies superiority

No it doesn't. Normal implies that it's the most common, that's what
it means. Mailmen were mailmen because there weren't any mailwomen
back then, that's all.

Del