The problems with DD being gay

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 178259

Combined answer to Penhaligon, Susan McGee, and va32h.

***

Penhaligon wrote:
> Can you please explain how you possibly arrived at this conclusion?

Del scratches her head and answers:
I spent an entire post doing just that, so I don't understand exactly
what you're expecting from me here?

***

Susan McGee wrote:
> I would be outraged and stricken if JKR were to say that DD was 
> fixated on young boys or attracted to young boys.

Del replies:
So would I. But that wasn't the point of my post.

> I do not believe that canon supports the idea that DD was attracted 
> to and spied upon adolescent boys and was romantically or sexually 
> infatuated with them. There is no evidence for this fact.

Yes there is. I presented that evidence in my first post. You can
choose to interpret that evidence differently than I do, but you can't
say it's not there.

And by the way: there is even less evidence for DD being gay.

> I'm interested in the fact that after you carefully lay out this
> argument about how canon supports DD as fixated on adolescent
> boys you then say that that was what Rita Skeeter (a known
> distorter of the truth) would say and you don't agree.
>
> It's great that we agree, then!

It depends what it is we supposedly agree on. Do I agree that DD
wasn't *in fact* ephebophile? Yes. But do I agree that the canon
presents him more as gay than ephebophile? No.

> I do become concerned when some people jump from the announcement
> that DD is gay to the idea that he must be a pervert or someone
> who secretly yearns after youth. I think it's connected to the
> mistaken idea that it is gay men or lesbians who molest children
> or youth. That of course is not true.

I get irritated by that kind of argument. It's not because JKR said
that DD is gay that I "jump" to the conclusion that he was
ephebophile. Those are 2 different things, I'm perfectly aware of
that. What I am arguing is that JKR's declaration that DD was sexually
attracted to GG, *in the light of the available canon*, points to
ephebophilia more than to homosexuality. IOW: that DD was never
actually gay to start with.

> J.K. Rowling stated that Albus Dumbledore fell in love with GG.
> They were both the same or around the same age. It was an equal
> relationship with someone of the same age (if in fact they had a
> relationship, we don't know).

How does that preclude ephebophilia? It doesn't preclude
homosexuality, I agree with that, but it doesn't preclude ephebophilia
either. The fact (that DD was in love with GG) could fit either
inclination. So what matters is the context, ie the rest of the canon.
And the rest of the canon supports ephebophilia more than
homosexuality IMO.

See, if GG had been a grown man when DD fell in love with him, then
the case would be closed. But he wasn't. He was a youth. 

> We don't know if DD ever had another partner or lover. J.K. Rowling
> doesn't say. He, of course, could have.

And he, of course, may not have. Suppositions won't get us anywhere.

> We do know that DD cared for and protected the children of Hogwarts
> to the best of his ability.

This doesn't preclude ephebophilia.

> We don't know that he never confronted Tom Riddle. We do know he
> spent his life fighting Tom Riddle.

No he didn't. He only fought LV once LV came to power. He'd known for
many long decades before that time that Tom Riddle was up to no good,
but he did exactly *nothing* to thwart him right until LV started
waging war on the WW.

> Despite being in love with GG, Dumbledore defeated him in battle
> and had him sent to prison for the rest of his life. Yes, he
> delayed can one imagine going into mortal battle with someone
> a) you had been in love with and b) someone who reminded you of
> the worst mistakes of your own life?

Change GG to Tom Riddle, and it provides you with a perfect
explanation for why DD didn't even try to stop Tom's rise to evil power.

> So this canon support of Dumbledore as someone who is fixated on
> young boys seems to evaporate.

Hardly. 

***

va32h wrote:
> But I gather you are going for some sort of Humbert Humbert scenario
> where Dumbledore is fixated on a certain age because of the nature 
> of his first love?

No. I'm rather saying that the nature of his first love was already an
indication of his natural inclination.

> Dumbledore suspected Tom regarding the basilisk, but did not know 
> for certain,

Then why not *try* and know for certain? Neither Tom nor DD ever said
anything about DD actually investigating the murder of Myrtle. He
didn't talk to Tom, he didn't talk to any of Tom's gang, nothing. DD
admitted that Tom's years at Hogwarts were marked by increasing
nastiness, but nobody ever indicated that DD ever *did* anything about
this nastiness. DD admits that he strongly suspected Tom, Tom says
that DD never trusted him and was always keeping a watchful eye on
him, but that's it. No *action*. Just wearily looking at what is going
on, just like he was doing with GG.

> and it's very much Dumbledore's nature to give people the benefit of
> the doubt.

That's the image he likes to project, but I don't buy it. That's
nothing more than a handy excuse to justify not taking action IMO.

> Also, Tom Riddle was very
> well liked by Armando Dippet (Dumbledore's superior at the time) so
> I'm not sure how much weight would have been given to Dumbledore's
> nebulous suspicions. 

Does this justify not even trying?

> Dumbledore did speak to Tom directly - but in that Dumbledore way of
> trying to get the guilty party to voluntarily fess up. 

Except that DD already knew perfectly well that Tom only fesses up
when forced to do it. Remember the stash of stolen objects at the
orphanage? Tom only confessed because he realised that DD already knew
all about it.

> Except that Snape didn't die, and we aren't really certain that 
> Sirius actually thought Snape was going to die.

When you send a kid wizard to the lair of a werewolf, you know they
are going to die. And no Snape didn't die, but Sirius showed
*murderous* intent nonetheless.

> Nor do we know if or how Sirius was punished.  It isn't specifically
> mentioned that Sirius was not punished at all, was it? 

Nor is it specifically mentioned that he was seriously punished.

> But it isn't flip to point out that Dumbledore allowed the adult 
> Snape to treat Harry and Neville rather badly without any 
> repercussions that we know of.  So does that mean Dumbleore had a 
> crush on the adult Snape too?  I doubt it.  

We know what DD's feelings towards Snape are because we are *shown*
their interactions. We don't need to infer from some indirect clues.
We are shown DD telling Snape "you disgust me", we are shown DD
dismissing Snape whenever Snape goes on a rant about Harry, we are
shown DD publicly humiliating Snape by stealing the House Cup from
under Snape's nose and handing it to Gryffindor, and so on. So we know
that DD definitely doesn't have a crush on adult Snape.

> We've never heard of Dumbledore brushing his teeth or taking a bath
> either, but I'm sure he did.  (We do know he went to the bathroom at
> least once!)

We never hear of James, Lily, Snape, Remus, Tonks, Arthur, Molly,
Bill, and Fleur, for example, brushing their teeth or taking a bath
either, but we *do* hear of their love affairs. Are they more
important than DD? Both in terms of overall story, and in terms of
Harry's personal story?

> Where in the course of Harry's story would it have 
> been logical to introduce Dumbleore's adult relationships?

Anywhere. Just a small picture of DD with another man somewhere in
the Headmaster's office, and Harry realising in passing what it means,
would have been enough. Instead, we get to hear again and again about
Fawkes and the softly stirring silver instruments.

> Dumbledore's feelings for Harry are paternal.  They are so blatantly
> paternal (IMO of course) that I can't imagine how anyone could read
> them otherwise!  Dumbledore's whole speech at the end of OoTP about
> Harry being too young to know his fate, wanting him to be happy, not
> wanting to burden him with adult responsibilities - everything about
> that interaction screams father-son to me. 

Yes, it's one way to see it. But I don't see that a celibate
ephebophile (ie someone who didn't want to hit on Harry) couldn't have
said exactly the same things.

> I don't think it was decades was it?  I thought DH said it was five
> years between Grindelwald's rise to power and the duel.

And what about before the rise to power? GG didn't just lie still all
that time. He was actively preparing his rise to power. But we have
absolutely no indication that DD ever did anything to change GG's mind
or prevent him from rising to power in the first place.

Exactly the same thing as happened later on with Tom Riddle.

> You know I always thought Dumbledore was too hard on himself about 
> the Grindelwald thing.  Why was it Dumbledore's sole responsibility 
> to bring down Gellert?  Sure, Albus was the most talented wizard of 
> his day, but he wasn't the only talented wizard.  He wasn't a 
> politician or a warrior, he was a schoolteacher.

Actually, DD was already settling into some political positions, like
in the Wizengamot, back when he was still in school (British Youth
Representative to the Wizengamot). And I don't think he got to be
Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards by
keeping his head low. So yes, he was a politician. As for being a
warrior: all wizards are warriors, as Molly demonstrated in DH.
Carrying a wand is carrying a mortal weapon, as Ariana's death sadly
proved. But anyway: I don't think that the WW so much expected DD to
rid them of GG, as to at least *try*. Sure, they figured that if he
tried he would probably win anyway, but what they were really
clamouring for was for DD to at least *try* to help them.

> I don't think Dumbledore had to "set his love aside to defeat evil". 
> I see it as Dumbledore recognizing a higher love (an agape sort of
> love of humanity) above his long-ago affection for an old friend. 

That's a personal interpretation I just don't share. I used to think
that DD indeed had some kind of higher love for humanity or something,
but after DH, he just strikes me as very self-centered, doing good for
other people only when it doesn't clash with his own interests.

> Sort of the same way Lily had to set aside her affection for Snape
> once it seemed clear to her that he was heading down the wrong path. 
> Lily was able to make that choice at a much younger age than
> Dumbledore, but then Dumbledore never denied being a sentimental old
> fool. 

Again, an easy excuse for not taking action when he should have IMO.