Amortentia and re The morality of love potions/Merope and Tom Sr.

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 152322

Betsy Hp:
I'm having a hard time figuring out where to jump in here, so I'll 
just jump in. <g>

First, regarding love potions in general:  When they first get 
introduced in GoF with Molly, Ginny and Hermione giggling over them 
in the background, I assumed that love potions didn't really work.  
That maybe they gave the drinker a slight buzz or maybe lowered 
inhibitions a tad, but that if the drinker didn't feel any 
attraction to the person giving the potion, no false feelings would 
arise.  IOWs, I thought love potions were harmless fun.  In HBP, JKR 
proved that assumption to be 100% wrong.

Actually, I don't think JKR could have made it clearer that love 
potions are actually rape drugs.  Love potions are used twice in 
canon, and once in what I'll call "canon-lite".  And every, single 
time they completely eclipse the drinker's will and make the man 
(and it is a man in each case) the literal slave of the person doing 
the dosing.

The interesting thing (to me anyway) is that this plays true to the 
old folk tales and fairy tales and the old-wives tales about witches 
stealing away virtuous and handsome young men to use towards their 
own twisted ends.  (IIRC, weren't wet dreams blamed on witches 
sending succubi to torment otherwise good Christian boys?)

> >>Carol:
> First, I'm very curious as to whether any *male* list members would
> classify what happened to Tom Sr. as "rape."
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Obviously I'm not male <g>, but I can't see how you could call what 
happened to Tom Sr. as anything *but* rape.  Of a particularly 
vicious and cruel kind where he was made to feel grateful to his 
rapist for raping him.  No wonder he returns to his parents so 
completely broken.  (Was he even able to serve during WWII?  There's 
no mention of his doing so.)

And if Tom's broken state isn't enough to convince, we've got 
the "canon-lite" example of the Witch and the Muggle, from JKR's 
WOMBAT test:

"Witch F fed love potion to a Muggle man, who has married her. When 
you went around with a wedding gift you discovered that she is using 
him as an occasional table."

I got the sense that some folks thought she'd transfigured him into 
a table.  I always presumed that the man was so besotted, *because* 
of the potion, that he "willing" assumed the postition of a table 
and stayed there.  Which, IMO, paints a very disturbing picture of 
complete and total mental dominance.  There's a *reason* Dumbledore 
can't tell the difference between a victim of Imperius and a victim 
of Love Potions.

The *only* reason I can possibly think of for love potions not being 
labled as dark is that witches and wizards have a natural sort of 
immunity to them.  That they're all like Harry with Imperius.  
Unless, as in Ron's case, the potion becomes too potent.  And it's 
been made more than clear, IMO, that the entire WW considers muggles 
a lesser species.

Of course, I realize that there is a belief that rape must be 
penetrative to be considered rape.  And while a man *can* be 
penetrated, and therefore raped, by another man, it's a bit harder 
(though not impossible) for a woman to penetrate a man.  And in the 
case of Tom and Merope, he must have done at least some of the 
penetrating for a baby to be the result.

But, as I've said before, a man can be made to have an erection with 
out actually wanting one.  Men who rape younger boys will defend 
themselves by saying that the boy was physically excited too.  The 
idea that a love potion can induce Ron to physically attack Harry 
(*totally* out of character for Ron) but couldn't possibly induce 
him to feel physcially attracted towards someone he'd normally find 
repulsive is strange to me.  As is the idea that a man can be 
induced to play the part of a table, but cannot be induced to render 
sexual services if asked.

> >>Carol:
> > <SNIP>
> > If Tom were merely the victim of unwanted sex with a girl he was
> > repulsed by, he could have gotten over it just as men get over 
> > having sex with girls they don't know after having had too many 
> > drinks, or encounters with prostitutes that they later regret    
> > but don't spend their lives reliving and repenting. Men don't    
> > make a big deal about losing their virginity or undesirable sex 
> > partners unless there are other consequences like venereal       
> > disease or the woman's pregnancy.
> > <snip>

Betsy Hp:
You're completely and totally wrong about this, Carol.  Rape is rape 
is rape.  Male or female, a victim of rape *is* effected.  Just look 
at some of the testimony at the "Priest trials" here in the United 
States.  Those young men were effected for a very long time after 
they were raped.  Just look at the "teacher trials" going on now.

And we have absolutely no clue as to Tom's sexual experience before 
he was taken prisoner by Merope.  For all we know he *was* a 
virgin.  We know he was a young man (19?), and we only have evidence 
of one female friend.  We also know that he was a product of 1930's 
England, where sex education was probably pretty backwords.  And of 
course, he didn't believe in witches.  Tom was violated in a way 
he'd never dreamed possible.

Honestly, what if it had been Morfin (who did break into Tom's 
bedroom at least once) who'd whisked Tom away to have his way with 
him?  Would you still consider Tom a willing partner to his rape?

> >>Carol:
> Once he got over the initial outrage and humiliation, he should   
> have seen that she, a lifelong victim of abuse, only wanted to be 
> loved, that she was sorry for her mistake, that as a fellow human 
> being, she deserved to be treated with compassion even though
> she had hurt him.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Great.  Only, *Tom never got over it*!  He was a recluse from the 
time he stumbled back to his parents to the moment he was murdered 
with them.  Tom was completely and totally broken by Merope.  He 
didn't have the ability or the chance to forgive her treatment of 
him.
 
> >>Carol:
> <SNIP>
> He lost his marital prospects; she was condemned, along with her   
> unborn child, to a life of misery.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
No, Tom lost his mind.  And Merope *chose* to suffer.  Honestly, I 
think she was so horrified by what she had become (something worse 
than her father) that she made a decision to die.  Merope was a 
witch, remember.  She wasn't a helpless little thing as proven by 
her enslavement of Tom in the first place.  The power was Merope to 
use or abuse.  Tom was the helpless little thing in this story.

> >>Alla:
> I cannot imagine a worst punishment for rape victim that staring  
> in the face of the child conceived under such circumstances.

Betsy Hp:
I totally agree.  That's why rape kits come with "morning after" 
pills.  (At least as per "Law and Order" <g>.)  That's why pro-life 
supporters make an exception for rape cases.  

> >>Pippin:
> <SNIP>
> Till death us do part. Marriage was pretty much an unbreakable vow 
> in those days. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
No, it wasn't.  This was the 1930's, after all.  And most legal 
contracts require that those entering into the contract be of sound 
mind.  Tom was not.

> >>Pippin:
> > By the laws and customs of that era, Tom  owed Merope support as
> > long as she was faithful to  him, and I don't think anyone  has 
> > suggested that she wasn't. 

Betsy Hp:
But she was a witch who had willfully and with foul purpose 
entranced him.  I doubt the laws of that era covered it (though it 
wouldn't surprise me if there were some old laws still on the books) 
but I'm betting that the marriage would have been considered void 
and her life forfeit if that fact had come out and been believed.

Betsy Hp