Canon citation requested (was Re: The problems with DD being gay

[Shaunette Reid]

No: HPFGUIDX 178446


> Shelley:
[snip, snip]
> People just assume that because of all the general
> clues don't show any obviously gay tendencies in DD, then he must have
been
> straight, or totally uninvolved what-so-ever (which still equates to
> straight in my mind).

Shaunette:
nonsexual means heterosexual? how so?


That is a reasonable assumption- to assume the author
> would tell us if any "unusual" things went on, and that if she didn't,
that
> "normal" must have happened instead.
[snips]

Shaunette:
This is exactly the point. It is normal for a significant fraction of a
population to be homosexual. She didn't tell us that everyone is
straight, which would be unusual. The omission of a description of this
fact is not unusual for your average children's story (just like, as you
say, the omission of bathroom breaks, which actually serves against your
argument), but to assume everyone is straight is actually very silly
because that would be so unusual in any batch of human beings.
JKR's characters were real enough to her to have differing sexual
perferences, races, etc. They don't have to go to the bathroom on-page,
and they don't have to have sex on-page for me to assume that they do so
in the various ways found in any population of normal humans.

Shaunette, rather annoyed with how ignorant and narrow-minded this group
has been over this. From "gay Dumbledore must have been hankering for
Harry" to "how dare she explain her idea of Dumbledore" to "normalcy is
uniform heterosexuality"...give me a break. I thought this was HP for
*grownups*?