Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 182088

> Betsy Hp:
> But she's not, in the end.  Female sexuality is still a "bad thing".  
> Hermione and Ginny (our "good girls") are interested in sex as a 
> means to get children.  And only with their husbands.  

Pippin:
I fail to see any canon that Ginny and Hermione had any interest in 
having children until they were well into their twenties.  We know they
had a variety of snogging partners,   none of whom professed any 
disenchantment with their skills, so presumably they showed
a reasonable amount of enthusiasm despite not being with their future
mates. 

Whether they had sex with anyone besides their husbands -- well, the 
only way we know in canon in that anyone has had sex is that they've
had children. 

 JKR leaves the details to our imagination. If you want to call that
prudery, go right ahead -- but I think teens appreciate having 
books that don't make them feel that if they're not ready for sex 
they're abnormal. 

But if you're saying that there's something *wrong* with finding sexual 
fulfillment in marriage -- we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Betsy Hp:
> It's like that old question that used to be asked back when I was in 
> junior high (made famous by "The Breakfast Club"), "Are you a slut or 
> a prude?"  There was no middle ground for an unmarried girl.  I don't 
> see this as a step forward, myself.  Nor do I find it particularly 
> modern.

Pippin:
Where is the canon that anyone thinks Fleur is violating sexual  norms?

Even people who can't stand her  don't accuse her of anything except being
stuck up. Hermione and Ginny are accused, falsely, of violating sexual norms in
the wizarding world -- by using love potions at Hogwarts (a violation of
school rules, not a crime) or by having more than one boyfriend at a time.
There's no middle ground about those things, I guess -- is that what
you're trying to say? 


The staircase points out to us that sexual mores do change, 
presumably because they've been challenged. I would think that in the
context of these books, in which sexuality and romantic love are not
the main focus, that's enough.

 When I was in jr high, (a good twenty years before you, if you were there in
1985)  nobody was criticizing  CS Lewis's treatment of poor Susan.
 I accepted that she could be villified  for letting her imagination be overrun 
by boys when she should have been thinking about her soul. And as far
as I knew, so did everyone else.  If HP enforced the same standard, then
Bill would have rejected Fleur when somebody told him about Roger, and
Ginny couldn't have given Dean or Michael the time of day, much less
spent any time with Harry in secluded corners of the grounds.  You
don't appreciate what you've got, girl <g>

 Fleur's soul is not diminished, and I strongly disagree that she's presented 
as a bad girl in GoF. At the end of that book Harry feels his spirit lifting as 
the wind ripples her hair. He's gotten over himself enough to admire her 
beauty without feeling threatened by it. 

Pippin