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

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 152368

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> And, rephrasing your analogy - certainly, how dare this woman made a 
> man an object of her will, since contrary to Pippin's argument I see 
> no evidence in canon that victim of love potion has ANY choice in the 
> matter, especially that such "obsession" can be distinguished from 
> love and to be overcome.

Pippin:
I agree that if a love potion makes a person unable to refuse a sexual
advance, it could be called a rape drug. But where is the canon for this
assertion? It seems a circular argument to say that Tom made love
to a woman he wouldn't have wanted if he hadn't taken the love potion,
and therefore the love potion not only made him want her but made him
have sex. It sounds like an echo of the  sexist notion that men
have no control over their sex drives and are at the mercy of any woman
who entices them.

Nor do I see that it's necessary to explain why Tom married Merope.

I can believe that Tom, who is arrogant in our brief glimpse of him and
characterized as snobbish and rude by the villagers, would ignore anything
he had ever been told about giving into obsessions and any advice that
he should wait before taking such a serious step, without any help from
a potion. He was used to taking what he wanted.

Let me ask this, Alla. If love potions produce an illusion of love so perfect
that the victim cannot tell the difference between that and the real thing,
how can Slughorn state so confidently that love potions do not produce
love? Wouldn't he  say instead  that they produce a love that
lasts only as long as the potion does? What do you think is the basis 
of Slughorn's statement? Do you think it is false?

Pippin