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

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 152387

> SSSusan:
 
> And even if you're not arguing that he had a legal obligation to 
> stand by her, I also don't think many people would feel he had any 
> moral obligation either, regardless of how pathetic the situation 
> was.  *I'm* guessing he was horrified by what she had done and 
> couldn't wait to get away.  Am I alone in thinking that's how most 
of 
> us would react if someone had tricked us into such a relationship 
and 
> totally altered our life??
> 
> I'm not Catholic, but I do know that one of the conditions under 
> which a marriage can be annulled is if one of the parties was 
misled 
> by the other.  Again, this seems so obvious to me that that's what 
> Merope did -- she misled Tom, tricked him.  Why should he be under 
> any obligation to her?  
> <snip> 

a_svirn:
I absolutely agree that Tom had no obligation to Merope under the 
circumstances. His obligations to his child is quite another matter, 
though. I would say that if he were a wizard he would have a moral 
(although not legal, since such marriage should be proclaimed null 
and void under the law) obligation to provide for his child. But he 
was not. He was a muggle who was sexually abused and violated by a 
witch. I suppose once the "enchantment" in question was finally 
lifted he was not just traumatized or angry or whatever. I think he 
was terrified and ran for it. And as well he might. How was he to 
know that she wouldn't repeat the performance? Or maybe come up with 
something even more creative? 

> Carol:
> > To return to the "rape" idea, please find me some evidence that 
> > anyone in the book considers Tom Sr.to be the victim of rape. 
> > Dumbledore certainly doesn't, nor does Harry. Nor does Tom Sr. 
> > himself claim anything of the sort. He says that he 
> > was "hoodwinked," meaning, according to Dumbledore, tricked nto 
> > marrying a girl he didn't and couldn't love. 
> 
> SSSusan:
> Dumbledore "certainly" doesn't?  I can't go along with that.  He 
> *might* not; it isn't clear; it wasn't asked directly. (IIRC. That 
> is, I don't recall Harry saying, "You mean she RAPED him??")  I 
know 
> people hate when this card is pulled, but... um... CHILDREN'S 
book, 
> anyone?  Is JKR going to use the term "rape" in a series where the 
> farthest she's gone is "snogging"?  (Nobody talking about getting 
to 
> 3rd base; no pregnancies amongst the students.)  To 
me "hoodwinked" 
> is a safer term, in that *kids* might focus on "trickery," whereas 
> adults might take it much more as a euphemism for a forced 
> relationship.

a_svirn:
Well, actually "hoodwinked" in this instance is neither "children-
proof" term, nor turn of phrase expressing being tricked into an 
unwonted marriage. What Dumbledore actually says is that *villagers* 
put such a construction on Tom Sr. words. He himself, however, – 
according to Dumbledore – meant something else entirely: 

"You see, within a few months of their runaway marriage, Tom Riddle 
reappeared at the manor house in Little Hangleton without his wife. 
The rumor flew around the neighborhood that he was talking of 
being 'hoodwinked' and 'taken in.' What *he* meant, I am sure, is 
that he had been *under an enchantment* that had now lifted, though 
I daresay he did not dare use those precise words for fear of being 
thought insane. When *they* heard what he was saying, however, the 
*villagers* guessed that Merope had lied to Tom Riddle, pretending 
that she was going to have his baby, and that he had married her for 
this reason" [emphasis mine a_svirn]. 

So you see, it was his being "under an enchantment" that turned 
Tom's world upside-down, not his being married to a socially 
unacceptable girl. (Although I suppose, it added insult to injury.) 
And being "under an enchantment" in this instance means being 
sexually violated. We may quibble whether or not Merope actions 
constitute rape, since Tom wasn't exactly ravished (although he may 
have been, at that). Modern usage certainly allows this 
interpretation. (See OD "3. a. Violation or ravishing of a woman. 
Also, in mod. usage, sexual assault upon a man."; "3. To ravish, 
commit rape on (a woman). Also, with a man as the sexual object and 
a man or woman as the subject.") So, although Tom probably 
wasn't "ravished", there is no question that he was violated. Even 
if he himself wouldn't use the word *rape*.