More random jottings - on a theme

[Amanda]

> Oh dear ... where to start, where to start ... Right, boys and 
> girls, back to the birds and the bees: What is sex?

> Apparently, a few otherwise clever people are laboring under the 
illusion
> that sexuality refers to an energetic activity involving anatomical 
friction
> between one or more persons and/or body parts. Which is a bit like 
saying
> that nutrition means eating a hamburger for lunch or that driving a 
> car means turning a steering wheel and making honking noises.

Heavy snip.

> Baaaaaa!

Ech, yes
 I was not clear at all in my statement, and it's come out 
making me look rather silly. I used the word sexuality incorrectly; I 
should have typed sex.

The saga is full of sexuality, absolutely, from Aberforths goat 
infatuation, to Bellatrix tormenting Harry about the ineffectuality 
of his Curciartus curse. The twin's rampant wand use in OotP, Ron's 
never-ending, unrequited lust for Hermione (and all the lovely 
examples you give that I snipped for space). There are the Hogwart's 
girls and their Love Potions, Ginny and her Boys, the Yule Ball and 
the Quest for a Suitably Attractive Date,   etc, etc, etc.  

Sexuality all over the place but that is part of my issue. The fact 
that JKR dealt with sexuality so well during the entire saga and yet 
when she arrived at the point of having 17/18 year olds thrown 
together in desperate and terrifying times for there to be no hint of 
sex is, as I said, just odd. 

I think JKR could have snuck sex it in there if she wanted (clearly 
she didn't and that's her right), delicately and with respect. It 
would have simply made the situation all more real for me. That's 
all. It doesn't diminish the impact of the story for me but I'm 
certain it would have giving it more depth, making it just a little 
better. 

Amanda (exslytherin)