Shocking revelation?

OK, so people were saying earlier how open-minded they were and didn't care about this revelation, as it were, yet now it seems the books have been ruined because of the obvious homosexual sex that is rife throughout the books. Because obviously, now that it's been revealed about Dumbledore's homosexuality, automatically every instance of his being alone with Harry, or any boy for that matter, must have included something sexual. It doesn't matter about the times when Harry was alone with Snape or Lupin or any of the female teachers. But because Dumbledore's a gay man, there could have been no other reason for his being alone with his students.
 
I think too many folks debating this issue (not just here, but throughout the net) are under the impression that homosexuality comes with a side of sexual deviance. There are constant references being made about Harry and Dumbledore's relationship, as if Dumbledore being gay also requires that he be a sexual predator. Being homosexual does not make you a child molester, no more than being heterosexual; do we all then start a debate about Snape's untoward relationship with Hermoine, and how his mistreatment of her was somehow appeasing his sexual impulses? What other wild theories should we derive about the other teachers; or even the parents? Did Mr. and Mrs. Weasly practice bondage or enjoy a good Nina Heartley instructional video while the kids were at school.

Let's remember these were children, and just because Dumbledore was a homosexual, doesn't mean that he had feelings for any of the students. The assumption is also made that because of his sexuality he's some raving mad sexual monster who just couldn't wait to jump in the sack. His actions in the books speak for themselves; he was an amiable, pleasant soul that had the best of intentions in mind when he helped those he cared about. This changes nothing, save the fans' opinion of one J.K. Rowling and her motivations.
 
I think too many folks debating this issue (not just here, but throughout the net) are under the impression that homosexuality comes with a side of sexual deviance. There are constant references being made about Harry and Dumbledore's relationship, as if Dumbledore being gay also requires that he be a sexual predator.

I think this has more to do with the immaturity of the Harry Potter readers and the lack of understanding of being a homosexual.

The standard generalisation is that homosexual men are, as you said, sexual deviants and incapable of love. When in fact it is far from truthful, but intolerance to something 'unnatural' will lead to such generalisations.

Similar to all muslims are terrorists.

(This is from my experiences, I don't speak for everyone)
 
What Maji and I were saying before was all in jest, well I can only speak for myself really, but I never meant to seriously imply that he was a raving mad sex feind that took his and Harry's relationship any farther than student/mentor. Likewise with the Snape/Harry thingy.
Sorry if you got that impression.
 
My reply wasn't aimed at anyone specific. I saw nothing in your posts that warranted a response, and anything said in a joking manner I tend to take that way. Very rarely will sarcasm or facetiousness be lost on me. I was more or less making a general rebuttal to this and other conversations that have been running rampant since the announcement.

No harm, no foul I hope, I surely don't want you to think I was singling you out.
 
"The wand chooses the wizard, remember"

Now THAT'S funny! :p

It was a "shocking revelation" to me and an unnecessary one regardless if she was asked directly. Would like to know the reason behind the question asked.

Now that I think about it, I always thought Quidditch was kinda "gay" - flying brooms, seeking the "golden snitch", "beaters" and "bludgers" and such.

Oh, and what about House Hufflepuff? What's a huffle anyway and who's puffing it? :eek:

Oh, I could go on forever! :D
-g-
 
LOL, they didn't need this revelation to speculate on Harry's alone time with his professors. In fact, it was such a popular subject that Rowling asked a few years ago that people not write slash of her characters.
 
Mithy jumped in before me but yeah thats all I meant as well.

Publicity stunt mainly if you ask me.
 
...do we all then start a debate about Snape's untoward relationship with Hermoine, and how his mistreatment of her was somehow appeasing his sexual impulses?
No, but maybe we do look at Dumbledore's treatment of Snape in a new light?

I agree with your comments Commonmind. I've read other articles on this, some even in Newspapers. They all equate homosexuality with being a sexual predator, when there is no evidence in the books that Dumbledore was ever that. It does, however, explain why he might have made bad decisions to initially follow Grindelwald, which was JKR's point.

This thread has a leading title anyhow: "Shocking revelation?" I didn't find it particularly shocking, just a little odd until I what read JKR actually said about it. I find all of the continued speculation about such a trivial thing very strange. I heard a joke about it on the radio only last night.
 
What I don't understand is why Rowling felt moved to make this revelation at all. What does it add to the character? How is it relevant in any way? So what if Dumbledore was gay. He seems to have been entirely celibate, at least during his long career at Hogwarts. Lucius Malfoy would have outed him in a heartbeat if there'd been the slightest suspicion of any hanky-panky with students!

yeah I wish she would have never said anything. People around me that know I have a huge infatuation with HP make fun of Dumbles, and that makes meh sad. :(
 
I don't have a problem with any or all of the characters in a book being homosexual. I just don't get why, after all the books are over, she chose to make this statement.

It adds nothing to the tale or the characters. Unless you want to go back now and re-read all the books while reminding yourself that Dumbledore is gay and does this therefore actually mean that.
And of course all those who opposed the books in the first place now have more fodder and this might turn into more sales on the fuss and bother.

It would have been good if this had been a part of the books all along. It could have been used to discuss the various lifestyle choices people have. But she didn't do that at all. And never made any hits either in all those press conferences and interviews.

It's ridiculous. Sounds as if she's missing the limelight and is trying her best to be in it again and homosexuality is always a good card to play even in this day and age; perhaps especially in this day and age.
 
I don't have a problem with any or all of the characters in a book being homosexual. I just don't get why, after all the books are over, she chose to make this statement.

It adds nothing to the tale or the characters. Unless you want to go back now and re-read all the books while reminding yourself that Dumbledore is gay and does this therefore actually mean that.
And of course all those who opposed the books in the first place now have more fodder and this might turn into more sales on the fuss and bother.

It would have been good if this had been a part of the books all along. It could have been used to discuss the various lifestyle choices people have. But she didn't do that at all. And never made any hits either in all those press conferences and interviews.

It's ridiculous. Sounds as if she's missing the limelight and is trying her best to be in it again and homosexuality is always a good card to play even in this day and age; perhaps especially in this day and age.

Exactly! As always, very insightful and perceptive, Nesa!
 
my understanding is that she revealed dumbledores homosexual status in response to a fan asking her whether dumbledore ever found true love.

im guessing she never revealed it in the books cause it bore no direct relation to the plot and would have appeared like she was including it just to say hey look ive got a gay character and cause more controversy about the books. from what ive heard she kept it secret until now cause she didnt want more controversy round her books whilst writing them

of course i could be wrong and shes just trying to gather more attention for her books now the their all writen and published and not so much an obssesion for the public
 
I'm with Loreth on this one. She was asked a specific question and answered it truthfully and fully, adding background from her head which otherwise wasn't in the book. It was already "not a secret", insofar as she had to tell the script writer. The only real point, as already mentioned, was to explain some of Dumbledore's apparently odd decisions regarding Grindlewald.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top