Re: J.K. Rowling outs Hogwarts character

[Guest guest]

The article stated: " ... <snip> ... Harry Potter fans, the rumors

are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts,

is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that

ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while

appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall ... <snip> ... "

What purpose does this 'outing' of Dumbledore serve? Some things

need never be made public. If J.K. Rowling wants her characters to

have certain sexual proclivities, that is her prerogative.

HOWEVER, these books are read by millions of children and youth as

well as adults.

I don't want my child to find out that Severus Snapes is into BDSM.

I don't want my child to find out that Minerva McGonigall is into

Beastiality.

I don't want my child to find out that the object of Rubeus Hagrid's

affection at the Yule Ball happens to be a closet transsexual and

which is kept a secret from Rubeus Hagrid.

I don't want my child to find out that Arthur and Molly Weasly role

play in order to spice up their love life.

I don't want my child to find out Argus Filch collects and watches

XXX movies.

I don't want my child to find out that Pettigrew has a penchant

for leather and latex.

I absolutely never want my child to find out that Ron Weasley and

Harry Potter have had sn 'encounter' of the exploratory nature.

Now I have to worry that other 'private practices' will be revealed

by J.K. Rowling that will not only destroy the innocence of the books

but place me in a position where I have to explain to my child what

those 'private practices' involve, even if only in passing so as to

maintain a certain amount of innocence in his life.

He's a child. I want to keep him a child for as long as he is a

child. I want him to be a teenager (when that happens) for as long

as he is a teenager. Heaven knows that he will be an adult for a

very long time, God willing.

Why oh why do people feel they have the right to destroy the

innocence of children with such adult commentaries that will

absolutely filter down to their young audiences?

It's not about 'hating' homosexuals or being 'against' homosexuals.

I just don't believe that things that are adult in nature and meant

to be private should be thrown in the face of our children. I

realize that the print and broadcast media love the feeding frenzy

that follows the flaunting of this sort of fodder, but that still

doesn't mean that J.K. Rowling was right to 'out' Dumbledore.

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

The article stated: " ... <snip> ... Harry Potter fans, the rumors

are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts,

is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that

ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while

appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall ... <snip> ... "

What purpose does this 'outing' of Dumbledore serve? Some things

need never be made public. If J.K. Rowling wants her characters to

have certain sexual proclivities, that is her prerogative.

HOWEVER, these books are read by millions of children and youth as

well as adults.

I don't want my child to find out that Severus Snapes is into BDSM.

I don't want my child to find out that Minerva McGonigall is into

Beastiality.

I don't want my child to find out that the object of Rubeus Hagrid's

affection at the Yule Ball happens to be a closet transsexual and

which is kept a secret from Rubeus Hagrid.

I don't want my child to find out that Arthur and Molly Weasly role

play in order to spice up their love life.

I don't want my child to find out Argus Filch collects and watches

XXX movies.

I don't want my child to find out that Pettigrew has a penchant

for leather and latex.

I absolutely never want my child to find out that Ron Weasley and

Harry Potter have had sn 'encounter' of the exploratory nature.

Now I have to worry that other 'private practices' will be revealed

by J.K. Rowling that will not only destroy the innocence of the books

but place me in a position where I have to explain to my child what

those 'private practices' involve, even if only in passing so as to

maintain a certain amount of innocence in his life.

He's a child. I want to keep him a child for as long as he is a

child. I want him to be a teenager (when that happens) for as long

as he is a teenager. Heaven knows that he will be an adult for a

very long time, God willing.

Why oh why do people feel they have the right to destroy the

innocence of children with such adult commentaries that will

absolutely filter down to their young audiences?

It's not about 'hating' homosexuals or being 'against' homosexuals.

I just don't believe that things that are adult in nature and meant

to be private should be thrown in the face of our children. I

realize that the print and broadcast media love the feeding frenzy

that follows the flaunting of this sort of fodder, but that still

doesn't mean that J.K. Rowling was right to 'out' Dumbledore.

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

> HOWEVER, these books are read by millions of children and youth as

> well as adults.

*snip*

>

> He's a child. I want to keep him a child for as long as he is a

> child. I want him to be a teenager (when that happens) for as long

> as he is a teenager. Heaven knows that he will be an adult for a

> very long time, God willing.

>

> Why oh why do people feel they have the right to destroy the

> innocence of children with such adult commentaries that will

> absolutely filter down to their young audiences?

>

> It's not about 'hating' homosexuals or being 'against' homosexuals.

> I just don't believe that things that are adult in nature and meant

> to be private should be thrown in the face of our children. I

> realize that the print and broadcast media love the feeding frenzy

> that follows the flaunting of this sort of fodder, but that still

> doesn't mean that J.K. Rowling was right to 'out' Dumbledore.

Very good points.... And I agree. I guess I hadn't thought about it in

this way because my kids aren't going to read or watch Harry Potter.

I am curious, were you able to avoid having to discuss with your son the

controversy a few months ago when the actor who played Harry was

performing nude on stage in London? His nearly naked bod was all over

the media and proclaimations of how 'brave' and how he was doing it to

prove he was a 'mature' actor... He was 17.

You can't control what jobs an actor takes after he does a children's

film, or the direction their lives will go in after they star in your

child's favorite movie. (Lindsey Lohan was in Herbie unloaded and I'm so

glad my kids are too young to follow her disasterous falling...)

This isn't the first time someone who writes or makes movies FOR

children uses their audience to further their political agenda's.

Sometimes it's subtle, and sometimes it's blatent.

I guess it's just an oppertunity to teach your kids not to trust

entertainment...

[Guest guest]

> HOWEVER, these books are read by millions of children and youth as

> well as adults.

*snip*

>

> He's a child. I want to keep him a child for as long as he is a

> child. I want him to be a teenager (when that happens) for as long

> as he is a teenager. Heaven knows that he will be an adult for a

> very long time, God willing.

>

> Why oh why do people feel they have the right to destroy the

> innocence of children with such adult commentaries that will

> absolutely filter down to their young audiences?

>

> It's not about 'hating' homosexuals or being 'against' homosexuals.

> I just don't believe that things that are adult in nature and meant

> to be private should be thrown in the face of our children. I

> realize that the print and broadcast media love the feeding frenzy

> that follows the flaunting of this sort of fodder, but that still

> doesn't mean that J.K. Rowling was right to 'out' Dumbledore.

Very good points.... And I agree. I guess I hadn't thought about it in

this way because my kids aren't going to read or watch Harry Potter.

I am curious, were you able to avoid having to discuss with your son the

controversy a few months ago when the actor who played Harry was

performing nude on stage in London? His nearly naked bod was all over

the media and proclaimations of how 'brave' and how he was doing it to

prove he was a 'mature' actor... He was 17.

You can't control what jobs an actor takes after he does a children's

film, or the direction their lives will go in after they star in your

child's favorite movie. (Lindsey Lohan was in Herbie unloaded and I'm so

glad my kids are too young to follow her disasterous falling...)

This isn't the first time someone who writes or makes movies FOR

children uses their audience to further their political agenda's.

Sometimes it's subtle, and sometimes it's blatent.

I guess it's just an oppertunity to teach your kids not to trust

entertainment...

[Guest guest]

Sox wrote: " ... <snip> ... I am curious, were you able to avoid having

to discuss with your son the controversy a few months ago when the

actor who played Harry was performing nude on stage in London? His

nearly naked bod was all over the media and proclaimations of

how 'brave' and how he was doing it to prove he was a 'mature' actor...

He was 17 ... <snip> ... "

I was lucky insofar as I was able to shield Cub from the media

reporting that went along with that choice of role by Radcliffe.

I did, however, have a back-up plan.

If Cub became aware that the actor who plays Harry Potter was doing

Equus on stage and that there was a scene where he was nude before his

audience, we were going to have a long talk about how some people do

not think their actions through completely.

We would then have the talk about what is a private body and what is a

public body (ie. hands are a public body part and can be seen by anyone

without needing permission to see it; private parts are a private body

part and can only be seen by someone such as a medical practitioner and

in the presence of another adult that he knows he can trust to do

what's right for him).

We would then have to discuss that the character of Harry Potter would

not do what Radcliffe the actor was doing and this would

safeguard the innocence of the Harry Potter series for Cub. The

Radcliffe situation would then become a non-issue and not worthy of

attention.

It's not easy being a parent, Sox, as you know. I do find that having

back-up plans helps a lot though in terms of reducing the stress levels

associated with, " What if .... "

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

I agree with you, it seems sadly the innocence of childhood is in

decline :-(

This recent expose from J.K Rowling does bring to mind the fact I

think she originally intended the books for an adult audience and my

cynical mind cannot help but wonder if this is some ploy of some kind

to be more considered for an adult audience - I wonder if that is her

next move? Just a thought. I disagree with what she has done though -

having knowledge of one's characters (behind the scenes) for one's

own personal knowledge is one thing, but I have to wonder if she has

forgotten that at the moment her target audience are children.

>

> The article stated: " ... <snip> ... Harry Potter fans, the rumors

> are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of

Hogwarts,

> is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series

that

> ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while

> appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall ... <snip> ... "

>

> What purpose does this 'outing' of Dumbledore serve? Some things

> need never be made public. If J.K. Rowling wants her characters to

> have certain sexual proclivities, that is her prerogative.

>

> HOWEVER, these books are read by millions of children and youth as

> well as adults.

>

> I don't want my child to find out that Severus Snapes is into BDSM.

>

> I don't want my child to find out that Minerva McGonigall is into

> Beastiality.

>

> I don't want my child to find out that the object of Rubeus

Hagrid's

> affection at the Yule Ball happens to be a closet transsexual and

> which is kept a secret from Rubeus Hagrid.

>

> I don't want my child to find out that Arthur and Molly Weasly role

> play in order to spice up their love life.

>

> I don't want my child to find out Argus Filch collects and watches

> XXX movies.

>

> I don't want my child to find out that Pettigrew has a

penchant

> for leather and latex.

>

> I absolutely never want my child to find out that Ron Weasley and

> Harry Potter have had sn 'encounter' of the exploratory nature.

>

> Now I have to worry that other 'private practices' will be revealed

> by J.K. Rowling that will not only destroy the innocence of the

books

> but place me in a position where I have to explain to my child what

> those 'private practices' involve, even if only in passing so as to

> maintain a certain amount of innocence in his life.

>

> He's a child. I want to keep him a child for as long as he is a

> child. I want him to be a teenager (when that happens) for as long

> as he is a teenager. Heaven knows that he will be an adult for a

> very long time, God willing.

>

> Why oh why do people feel they have the right to destroy the

> innocence of children with such adult commentaries that will

> absolutely filter down to their young audiences?

>

> It's not about 'hating' homosexuals or being 'against'

homosexuals.

> I just don't believe that things that are adult in nature and meant

> to be private should be thrown in the face of our children. I

> realize that the print and broadcast media love the feeding frenzy

> that follows the flaunting of this sort of fodder, but that still

> doesn't mean that J.K. Rowling was right to 'out' Dumbledore.

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

I hope you won't take offense at what may very well be an impertinent question,

coming

from a newbie like myself, but are you equating homosexuality with a kinky

fetish of some

kind? The news articles I've read about this announcement may well have omitted

some of

the author's comments, but I haven't come across any explicit mention of

Dumbledore's

sexual activities (nor those of any other characters.) I fully agree that

explicit sexual

content is inappropriate for children, but I don't see how the suggestion that

Dumbledore

had a romantic attraction to Grizenwald would be any more harmful to them than

reading

about Harry and Ginny's snogging, or knowing that Snape loved Lily Potter

--neither of

which even made the news.

Meeks

>

> The article stated: " ... <snip> ... Harry Potter fans, the rumors

> are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts,

> is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that

> ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while

> appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall ... <snip> ... "

>

> What purpose does this 'outing' of Dumbledore serve? Some things

> need never be made public. If J.K. Rowling wants her characters to

> have certain sexual proclivities, that is her prerogative.

>

> HOWEVER, these books are read by millions of children and youth as

> well as adults.

>

> I don't want my child to find out that Severus Snapes is into BDSM.

>

> I don't want my child to find out that Minerva McGonigall is into

> Beastiality.

>

> I don't want my child to find out that the object of Rubeus Hagrid's

> affection at the Yule Ball happens to be a closet transsexual and

> which is kept a secret from Rubeus Hagrid.

>

> I don't want my child to find out that Arthur and Molly Weasly role

> play in order to spice up their love life.

>

> I don't want my child to find out Argus Filch collects and watches

> XXX movies.

>

> I don't want my child to find out that Pettigrew has a penchant

> for leather and latex.

>

> I absolutely never want my child to find out that Ron Weasley and

> Harry Potter have had sn 'encounter' of the exploratory nature.

>

> Now I have to worry that other 'private practices' will be revealed

> by J.K. Rowling that will not only destroy the innocence of the books

> but place me in a position where I have to explain to my child what

> those 'private practices' involve, even if only in passing so as to

> maintain a certain amount of innocence in his life.

>

> He's a child. I want to keep him a child for as long as he is a

> child. I want him to be a teenager (when that happens) for as long

> as he is a teenager. Heaven knows that he will be an adult for a

> very long time, God willing.

>

> Why oh why do people feel they have the right to destroy the

> innocence of children with such adult commentaries that will

> absolutely filter down to their young audiences?

>

> It's not about 'hating' homosexuals or being 'against' homosexuals.

> I just don't believe that things that are adult in nature and meant

> to be private should be thrown in the face of our children. I

> realize that the print and broadcast media love the feeding frenzy

> that follows the flaunting of this sort of fodder, but that still

> doesn't mean that J.K. Rowling was right to 'out' Dumbledore.

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

I'm not equating it with anything. I just don't believe that sexuality is relevant with regards to the characters in any of the Harry Potter stories. The stories are complete as they are without the need to reference anyone's sexual preferences.

Rowling announced Dumbledore's sexual preference to an audience that included 1,600 public schools children (Newsweek story here ) selected from 40 schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District. We're not talking teenagers or adults here; we're talking 10 and 11 year old children.

At that age, children don't need to know any of that sort of thing. And just so you know, I also don't agree with telling children all sorts of things about heterosexual interactions of the romantic sort. Yes, my child knows the basics about reproduction but at his age -- a boy who turned 12 this past summer -- there is no reason for him to be exploring the ins and outs of homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and so on.

The word "snogging' is unfamiliar to me and as such, I cannot comment on what you are alluding to regarding Harry and Ginny.

As for Snape loving Lily Potter, it advanced the plot in the story as it provided MOTIVE and promoted a deeper understand of Snape's attachment to Harry Potter.

The additional information from Rowling that Dumbledore was gay and had a romantic attachment to Grindelwald in no way advanced the plot nor did it explain anything that had previously been unclear.

The whole thing was done for sensationalism's sake just like the year at the MTV Music Awards when Madonna and Britney french kissed for the cameras during their live performance.

My question to you is ... what do you consider a fetish in the long list of things I don't want my son to hear about the Potter characters?

If you found my examples of what I would not want my child to hear about regarding the characters in Harry Potter offensive to you, what in particular offends you?

Raven

> >> > The article stated: " ... <snip> ... Harry Potter fans, the rumors > > are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts, > > is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that > > ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while > > appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall ... <snip> ..."> > > > What purpose does this 'outing' of Dumbledore serve? Some things > > need never be made public. If J.K. Rowling wants her characters to > > have certain sexual proclivities, that is her prerogative. > > > > HOWEVER, these books are read by millions of children and youth as > > well as adults.> > > > I don't want my child to find out that Severus Snapes is into BDSM.> > > > I don't want my child to find out that Minerva McGonigall is into > > Beastiality.> > > > I don't want my child to find out that the object of Rubeus Hagrid's > > affection at the Yule Ball happens to be a closet transsexual and > > which is kept a secret from Rubeus Hagrid.> > > > I don't want my child to find out that Arthur and Molly Weasly role > > play in order to spice up their love life.> > > > I don't want my child to find out Argus Filch collects and watches > > XXX movies.> > > > I don't want my child to find out that Pettigrew has a penchant > > for leather and latex.> > > > I absolutely never want my child to find out that Ron Weasley and > > Harry Potter have had sn 'encounter' of the exploratory nature.> > > > Now I have to worry that other 'private practices' will be revealed > > by J.K. Rowling that will not only destroy the innocence of the books > > but place me in a position where I have to explain to my child what > > those 'private practices' involve, even if only in passing so as to > > maintain a certain amount of innocence in his life.> > > > He's a child. I want to keep him a child for as long as he is a > > child. I want him to be a teenager (when that happens) for as long > > as he is a teenager. Heaven knows that he will be an adult for a > > very long time, God willing.> > > > Why oh why do people feel they have the right to destroy the > > innocence of children with such adult commentaries that will > > absolutely filter down to their young audiences?> > > > It's not about 'hating' homosexuals or being 'against' homosexuals. > > I just don't believe that things that are adult in nature and meant > > to be private should be thrown in the face of our children. I > > realize that the print and broadcast media love the feeding frenzy > > that follows the flaunting of this sort of fodder, but that still > > doesn't mean that J.K. Rowling was right to 'out' Dumbledore.> > > > Raven> > Co-Administrator> >>

[Guest guest]

{snip}

> At that age, children don't need to know any of that sort of thing. And

> just so you know, I also don't agree with telling children all sorts of

> things about heterosexual interactions of the romantic sort.

This is consistent, and I agree with you.

>Yes, my child knows the basics about reproduction but at his age -- a boy who

> turned 12 this past summer -- there is no reason for him to be exploring

> the ins and outs of homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and so

> on.

>

Again, I agree. I don't, however see anything wrong with a child not being given

the

assumption that two people must be of the opposite sex to fall in love. I would

not, for

example, object, to a childrens' book that featured two protagonists who just

happened to

be of the same sex, and who fell in love, got married, and lived happily ever

after, with no

more mention of sexual activity than the average fairy tale.

> The word " snogging' is unfamiliar to me and as such, I cannot comment on

> what you are alluding to regarding Harry and Ginny.

It's the British term used in the books to refer to what we call " making out "

here in North

America.

>

> As for Snape loving Lily Potter, it advanced the plot in the story as it

> provided MOTIVE and promoted a deeper understand of Snape's attachment

> to Harry Potter.

>

> The additional information from Rowling that Dumbledore was gay and had

> a romantic attachment to Grindelwald in no way advanced the plot nor did

> it explain anything that had previously been unclear.

I have friends who would argue that the knowing romantic love was what kept

Dumbledore

from seeing(or accepting?) Grindelwaldfs (thanks for the correction, btw...I'm

terrible at

spelling character names, which is odd considering I'm usually not too bad at

spelling /

end irrelevant digression) evil for so long adds substantial depth to the

character and that

relationship. I'll agree however, that this is more likely to be appreciated by

mature

readers.

>

> The whole thing was done for sensationalism's sake just like the year at

> the MTV Music Awards when Madonna and Britney french kissed for the

> cameras during their live performance.

>

Thank you for clarifying this! Would it be accurate to say that your objection

is more to

the author's intentions in making the announcement than it is to the actual

content?

> My question to you is ... what do you consider a fetish in the long list

> of things I don't want my son to hear about the Potter characters?

I would take Pettigrew's " penchant for leather and latex " as an example of

sexual

fetishism...why do you ask?

>

> If you found my examples of what I would not want my child to hear about

> regarding the characters in Harry Potter offensive to you, what in

> particular offends you?

I wasn't personally offended by any of it, actually, but it looked to me as

though most of

the items on your list were activities (with the possible exception of Hagrid's

transsexual

friend), and would fall into the category of what you called 'private

practices.' I consider

being gay to be a preference, rather than a practice..that is to say that it is

something one

*is*, and not something one *does.* I don't particularly want to know about

these

characters' sexual activities either.

Meeks

>

> Raven

>

>

>

>

>

> > >

> > > The article stated: " ... <snip> ... Harry Potter fans, the rumors

> > > are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of

> Hogwarts,

> > > is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that

> > > ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while

> > > appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall ... <snip> ... "

> > >

> > > What purpose does this 'outing' of Dumbledore serve? Some things

> > > need never be made public. If J.K. Rowling wants her characters to

> > > have certain sexual proclivities, that is her prerogative.

> > >

> > > HOWEVER, these books are read by millions of children and youth as

> > > well as adults.

> > >

> > > I don't want my child to find out that Severus Snapes is into BDSM.

> > >

> > > I don't want my child to find out that Minerva McGonigall is into

> > > Beastiality.

> > >

> > > I don't want my child to find out that the object of Rubeus Hagrid's

> > > affection at the Yule Ball happens to be a closet transsexual and

> > > which is kept a secret from Rubeus Hagrid.

> > >

> > > I don't want my child to find out that Arthur and Molly Weasly role

> > > play in order to spice up their love life.

> > >

> > > I don't want my child to find out Argus Filch collects and watches

> > > XXX movies.

> > >

> > > I don't want my child to find out that Pettigrew has a

> penchant

> > > for leather and latex.

> > >

> > > I absolutely never want my child to find out that Ron Weasley and

> > > Harry Potter have had sn 'encounter' of the exploratory nature.

> > >

> > > Now I have to worry that other 'private practices' will be revealed

> > > by J.K. Rowling that will not only destroy the innocence of the

> books

> > > but place me in a position where I have to explain to my child what

> > > those 'private practices' involve, even if only in passing so as to

> > > maintain a certain amount of innocence in his life.

> > >

> > > He's a child. I want to keep him a child for as long as he is a

> > > child. I want him to be a teenager (when that happens) for as long

> > > as he is a teenager. Heaven knows that he will be an adult for a

> > > very long time, God willing.

> > >

> > > Why oh why do people feel they have the right to destroy the

> > > innocence of children with such adult commentaries that will

> > > absolutely filter down to their young audiences?

> > >

> > > It's not about 'hating' homosexuals or being 'against' homosexuals.

> > > I just don't believe that things that are adult in nature and meant

> > > to be private should be thrown in the face of our children. I

> > > realize that the print and broadcast media love the feeding frenzy

> > > that follows the flaunting of this sort of fodder, but that still

> > > doesn't mean that J.K. Rowling was right to 'out' Dumbledore.

> > >

> > > Raven

> > > Co-Administrator

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

meeks wrote: " ... <snip> ... I don't, however see anything wrong

with a child not being given the assumption that two people must be

of the opposite sex to fall in love. I would not, for example,

object, to a childrens' book that featured two protagonists who just

happened to be of the same sex, and who fell in love, got married,

and lived happily ever after, with no more mention of sexual activity

than the average fairy tale ... <snip> ... "

But that particular situation means that the preference is at the

center of the story. If a parent chose to read that story to their

child, that is between that parent and his or her beliefs.

The Dumbledore revelation was a toss off by the author that did not

have to be mentioned at all. Any debate could have been left to

those who wish to debate these sorts of things amongst themselves

without affecting 1,600 young school children.

Parents did not have a say in whether their child should be given the

information that Rowling imparted, without having been asked directly

or indirectly, to these children. That's the difference.

In your scenario, a parent would determine if their child would be

allowed to read this sort of book and that parent would determine how

to broach the subject in subsequent discussions (which, I imagine,

would come about rather quickly during the reading of the book).

With what happened, all of a sudden, 1,600 children are thrown by

something they had never anticipated and it opens all sorts of doors

that some children may not be able to handle thereby causing them

untold grief and confusion. This is terribly thoughtless on

Rowling's part and potentially dangerous to those children who are

very sensitive to such issues.

meeks wrote: " ... <snip> ... I'll agree however, that this is more

likely to be appreciated by mature readers ... <snip> ... "

True. However, because a large segment of her fan base also happens

to be children, she has a larger responsibility to those children and

in acting without forethought to how her announcement would

absolutely impact on a number of children, she announced that

Dumbledore was gay.

meeks wrote: " ... <snip> ... Would it be accurate to say that your

objection is more to the author's intentions in making the

announcement than it is to the actual content? ... <snip> ... "

Ian Fleming wrote the Bond novels as did Kingsley Amis (as

Markham), Pearson, Gardner and Benson.

What if one of those authors decided, after all these years, to

announce that Bond and Q were having a similar situation

between them and this is why Moneypenny never had a chance with Bond,

I would wonder what his intent was in making such an announcement.

Was Bond any less Bond because of such an announcement?

Would he be MORE Bond if an announcement was made that he was

heterosexual?

And what would we think if he was outed as being bisexual?

The comment most often heard, I believe, would be, " And this would

mean what exactly? " And this would be the question because Bond's

sexuality is immaterial to the storyline.

It is the same with Dumbledore's preferences. It is immaterial to

the storyline and does not add pertinent information regarding the

motives of any of the characters.

meeks wrote: " ... <snip> ... I wasn't personally offended by any of

it, actually, but it looked to me as though most of the items on your

list were activities (with the possible exception of Hagrid's

transsexual friend), and would fall into the category of what you

called 'private practices.' I consider being gay to be a preference,

rather than a practice..that is to say that it is something one *is*,

and not something one *does.* ... <snip> ... "

Point taken. I was just trying to underscore the fact that there are

mature scenarios that I don't believe any child needs to know about

at the age of 10 and 11.

For example, there may not be anything wrong with sexual role playing

but I certainly don't want my child exposed to that information at

his age.

meeks wrote: " ... <snip> ... I don't particularly want to know about

these characters' sexual activities either ... <snip> ... "

I agree. And if that's how adults feel about this disclosure,

imagine how much harder it is for a child to hear this sort of thing.

Raven

[Guest guest]

On another forum I go to someone posted the question that was asked

right before this one, and the way she handled it is far more

disturbing, IMO:

*************

Q: In the Goblet of Fire Dumbledore said his brother was prosecuted for

practicing inappropriate charms [JKR buries her head, to laughter] on a

goat; what were the inappropriate charms he was practicing on that goat?

JKR: How old are you?

Eight.

JKR: I think that he was trying to make a goat that was easy to keep

clean [laughter], curly horns. That's a joke that works on a couple

of levels. I really like Aberforth and his goats. But you know Aberforth

having this strange fondness for goats if you've read book seven,

came in really useful to Harry, later on, because a goat, a stag, you

know. If you're a stupid Death Eater, what's the difference. So,

that is my answer to YOU.

[audience applauds]

***************

Here is the actual quote from the book:

" My own brother, Aberforth, was prosecuted for practicing inappropriate

charms on a goat. It was all over the papers, but did Aberforth hide? No

he did not! He held his head up high and went about business as usual!

Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been

bravery... "

*****************

I don't care about the homosexuality promo - it's not surprising and not

a big deal... Out of place for a children's book, but tame compared to

the quote posted above about the goats. Putting references to bestiality

in a children's book makes me loathe Rowling as a despicable person who

has no respect for the innocence of those she's writing for... it's as

if she's TRYING to expose children to concepts that are not necessary to

tell her story. And the fact that her fans are APPLAUDING it disgusts

me.

By doing a simple google it's obvious that in the HP fandom it seems

this goat passage has been up for debate as to what it means - the

obsession with finding out more is part of the fun for fans.

Considering the child asking the question about the 'inappropriate

charms' was 8 she at least didn't come out and say 'he was having sex

with that goat', so she has some shred of decency. For a children's

book, it could easily have been some other sort of charm that an 8 year

old (and any other person) would have found fascinating... but no. Her

laughing and hinting around and finally saying 'that's my answer to YOU'

and the subsequent applauding of the audience is what makes it clear she

enjoys and has some need to be salacious.

Up until I read that quote I was shrugging about Harry Potter, if my

kids wanted to read it some day - gay wizard or not, I would have been

fine. However because she knows that fans consume everything inside the

book as well as what she says about it, and she is still implying that

the head wizard finds bestiality fine and his brother brave if he was

not ashamed of it, I'll never trust anything she writes.

I'm actually glad for this controversy because it's helped me think

about what I'm writing and how to describe the book so that people can

make a decision before hand if they want to read it or not. The bait and

switch is very distasteful to me and I don't want to fall into that.

That said I doubt I would have ever hid anything unseemly or even the

religious/political message and then reveal it to an audience of school

students at some unforeseen future time so that people who like to slip

things to children behind their parent's backs can cheer at my

'bravery'.

[Guest guest]

There is another way to look at this too. Many of these people applauded. However, I would like to ask the following.

If your son were away at a boarding school, would you let him take private lessons, with no outside supervision, from a man?

If yes, then:

Would you let your daughter take lessons alone with a man?

I think their reaction would be very telling.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

There is another way to look at this too. Many of these people applauded. However, I would like to ask the following.

If your son were away at a boarding school, would you let him take private lessons, with no outside supervision, from a man?

If yes, then:

Would you let your daughter take lessons alone with a man?

I think their reaction would be very telling.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

There is no surer sign of decay in a country than to see the rites of religion held in contempt. Niccolo Machiavelli

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

>The article stated: " ... <snip> ... Harry Potter fans, the rumors

>are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts,

>is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that

>ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while

>appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall ... <snip> ... "

Did Rowlings ever have Dumbledore do anything thing inappropriate

with any one in any of the books? I haven't read all of them so I

don't know. But I suspect the Dumbledore always behaved as the wise

and kindly old grandfather he is to Harry in the movies. Yes, he has

secrets any well developed character does, he has his own agenda and

doesn't tell people every thing he knows... So what if Rowlings

envisioned him as gay... Contrary to the beliefs of many people Gay

as a rule do not abuse kids or actively try to convert and recruit

people (kids in particular) they're like every one else they just

want to be allowed to be left alone in peace and not be harassed be

people that want to tell them how to live their lives. (That sounds

a whole lot like the same thing I think most Aspies want. It's want I

want anyways.)

What we have here is the Media making a issue out of an authors

answer to a question about the inner feeling of one of her

character. I am reminded of Frost's comment when asked " Why

the sleigh driver stop in his poem 'Stopping By Woods, on a Snowy

Evening'? " His reply was " He needed to take a leak. " It wasn't the

deep spiritual answer the answer the questioner wanted. If the Media

hadn't chosen to fan the flames of hate over the subject of

Homosexuality, no one outside a limited number of Harry Potter freaks

would have heard of the comment... Dumbledore's sexuality no bearing

on the story...

Ender

[Guest guest]

" The word " snogging' is unfamiliar to me and as such, I cannot

comment on what you are alluding to regarding Harry and Ginny.

It's the British term used in the books to refer to what we

call " making out " here in North America. "

'Snogging' where I am in England is generally referring to kissing.

>

> {snip}

> > At that age, children don't need to know any of that sort of

thing. And

> > just so you know, I also don't agree with telling children all

sorts of

> > things about heterosexual interactions of the romantic sort.

>

> This is consistent, and I agree with you.

>

>

> >Yes, my child knows the basics about reproduction but at his age --

a boy who

> > turned 12 this past summer -- there is no reason for him to be

exploring

> > the ins and outs of homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality

and so

> > on.

> >

> Again, I agree. I don't, however see anything wrong with a child

not being given the

> assumption that two people must be of the opposite sex to fall in

love. I would not, for

> example, object, to a childrens' book that featured two

protagonists who just happened to

> be of the same sex, and who fell in love, got married, and lived

happily ever after, with no

> more mention of sexual activity than the average fairy tale.

>

>

> > The word " snogging' is unfamiliar to me and as such, I cannot

comment on

> > what you are alluding to regarding Harry and Ginny.

>

> It's the British term used in the books to refer to what we

call " making out " here in North

> America.

>

>

> >

> > As for Snape loving Lily Potter, it advanced the plot in the

story as it

> > provided MOTIVE and promoted a deeper understand of Snape's

attachment

> > to Harry Potter.

> >

> > The additional information from Rowling that Dumbledore was gay

and had

> > a romantic attachment to Grindelwald in no way advanced the plot

nor did

> > it explain anything that had previously been unclear.

>

> I have friends who would argue that the knowing romantic love was

what kept Dumbledore

> from seeing(or accepting?) Grindelwaldfs (thanks for the

correction, btw...I'm terrible at

> spelling character names, which is odd considering I'm usually not

too bad at spelling /

> end irrelevant digression) evil for so long adds substantial depth

to the character and that

> relationship. I'll agree however, that this is more likely to be

appreciated by mature

> readers.

>

>

> >

> > The whole thing was done for sensationalism's sake just like the

year at

> > the MTV Music Awards when Madonna and Britney french kissed for

the

> > cameras during their live performance.

> >

> Thank you for clarifying this! Would it be accurate to say that

your objection is more to

> the author's intentions in making the announcement than it is to

the actual content?

>

>

> > My question to you is ... what do you consider a fetish in the

long list

> > of things I don't want my son to hear about the Potter characters?

>

> I would take Pettigrew's " penchant for leather and latex " as

an example of sexual

> fetishism...why do you ask?

>

>

> >

> > If you found my examples of what I would not want my child to

hear about

> > regarding the characters in Harry Potter offensive to you, what in

> > particular offends you?

>

> I wasn't personally offended by any of it, actually, but it looked

to me as though most of

> the items on your list were activities (with the possible exception

of Hagrid's transsexual

> friend), and would fall into the category of what you

called 'private practices.' I consider

> being gay to be a preference, rather than a practice..that is to

say that it is something one

> *is*, and not something one *does.* I don't particularly want to

know about these

> characters' sexual activities either.

>

>

> Meeks

[Guest guest]

"Up until I read that quote I was shrugging about Harry Potter, if mykids wanted to read it some day - gay wizard or not, I would have beenfine. However because she knows that fans consume everything inside the book as well as what she says about it, and she is still implying thatthe head wizard finds bestiality fine and his brother brave if he wasnot ashamed of it, I'll never trust anything she writes."

It sounds like you have learned a lesson that I wish many others would learn.

I have been known to make seemingly crass comments about moral issues and about certain people, and those who have heard me make these comments thought I was the one who was ignorant. After all, it is ignorant people who make "generalized" and "blanket" statements or who "name call" isn't it?

What enables me to make these seemingly crass statements from time to time is that I am in full possession of the facts and know what I am talking about whereas most other people who accuse me of being crass do not.

Rowling has always delighted in pulling the wool over parents' eyes in her Harry Potter books. If you know anything about Satanism, for example, you know that the use of the "Hand of Glory" which can be a potion or a literal hand, is one of the deepest, darkest, Satanic spells. She uses this potion freely to bring Voldemort back to life.

One could argue that perhaps she was striving for realism, yet anyone seeking to find out whether or not such a potion is true can easily discover that it is...and use it.

"Inappropriate charms on a goat" could mean any old thing and was probably meant tongue in cheek. But it does indeed imply beastiality, and I am sure that one or two kids have asked their parents "What's an inappropriate charm on a goat?"

As for homosexuality, here is something to remember...The Bible says it is an abomination before the Lord. Any Christian who reads the Harry Potter books has been taught through Dumbledore's character to respect him, revere him, and idolize him...and now we discover after the fact that he has been practicing or thinking about abominations before the Lord.

One can argue that the whole book is about witchcraft anyway, so what's the difference.

One can argue that we are to hate the sin and love the sinner.

But to my way of thinking, when you are an author that is marketing your books to millions of kids worldwide, putting the most reverential figure in Harry Potter (except for Harry himself) in an admirable position even though this charcater defends his brother's implied beastiality, and leaving this character in good standing even though he has done things that are an abomination are wrong.

The message Rowling sends to children is confusing:

1) Love the sinner, hate the sin. She does this by writing 7 books in which Dumbledore behaves admirably and we cannot help but admire him, but

2) She tells us outside of the books that he was sinful inside. By NOT letting Dumbledore have any comeuppance for his sins it suggests that he gets away with it unscathed and implies that we should let him get away with it unscathed too, and that we ourselves can follow a similar sinful path and come out of it unscathed.

The Bible is clear on the matter of homosexuality: It is an abomination before the Lord. Yet we are to love the sinner, hate the sin.

But the Bible says nothing about EXCUSING the sin, which is why Soddom and Gomorah were destroyed, and why people throughout the Bible are taken to task both by God and by their peers for sinning.

We have a duty to do the same, in my opinion. Rowling's duty appears to be to promote acceptance of sin, or a forgiveness of sin if we happen to like and revere the one who sins. By HER moral code, the more someone is likeable, the more we should forgive that person's sins. In point of example: If we had found out that SNAPE had homosexual feelings for, let's say, Professor Flitwick, would Rowling write her books in such a way that we are to forgive him?

And the sad thing is that kids worldwide are now trained and conditioned to take moral stance against God's on this.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

"Up until I read that quote I was shrugging about Harry Potter, if mykids wanted to read it some day - gay wizard or not, I would have beenfine. However because she knows that fans consume everything inside the book as well as what she says about it, and she is still implying thatthe head wizard finds bestiality fine and his brother brave if he wasnot ashamed of it, I'll never trust anything she writes."

It sounds like you have learned a lesson that I wish many others would learn.

I have been known to make seemingly crass comments about moral issues and about certain people, and those who have heard me make these comments thought I was the one who was ignorant. After all, it is ignorant people who make "generalized" and "blanket" statements or who "name call" isn't it?

What enables me to make these seemingly crass statements from time to time is that I am in full possession of the facts and know what I am talking about whereas most other people who accuse me of being crass do not.

Rowling has always delighted in pulling the wool over parents' eyes in her Harry Potter books. If you know anything about Satanism, for example, you know that the use of the "Hand of Glory" which can be a potion or a literal hand, is one of the deepest, darkest, Satanic spells. She uses this potion freely to bring Voldemort back to life.

One could argue that perhaps she was striving for realism, yet anyone seeking to find out whether or not such a potion is true can easily discover that it is...and use it.

"Inappropriate charms on a goat" could mean any old thing and was probably meant tongue in cheek. But it does indeed imply beastiality, and I am sure that one or two kids have asked their parents "What's an inappropriate charm on a goat?"

As for homosexuality, here is something to remember...The Bible says it is an abomination before the Lord. Any Christian who reads the Harry Potter books has been taught through Dumbledore's character to respect him, revere him, and idolize him...and now we discover after the fact that he has been practicing or thinking about abominations before the Lord.

One can argue that the whole book is about witchcraft anyway, so what's the difference.

One can argue that we are to hate the sin and love the sinner.

But to my way of thinking, when you are an author that is marketing your books to millions of kids worldwide, putting the most reverential figure in Harry Potter (except for Harry himself) in an admirable position even though this charcater defends his brother's implied beastiality, and leaving this character in good standing even though he has done things that are an abomination are wrong.

The message Rowling sends to children is confusing:

1) Love the sinner, hate the sin. She does this by writing 7 books in which Dumbledore behaves admirably and we cannot help but admire him, but

2) She tells us outside of the books that he was sinful inside. By NOT letting Dumbledore have any comeuppance for his sins it suggests that he gets away with it unscathed and implies that we should let him get away with it unscathed too, and that we ourselves can follow a similar sinful path and come out of it unscathed.

The Bible is clear on the matter of homosexuality: It is an abomination before the Lord. Yet we are to love the sinner, hate the sin.

But the Bible says nothing about EXCUSING the sin, which is why Soddom and Gomorah were destroyed, and why people throughout the Bible are taken to task both by God and by their peers for sinning.

We have a duty to do the same, in my opinion. Rowling's duty appears to be to promote acceptance of sin, or a forgiveness of sin if we happen to like and revere the one who sins. By HER moral code, the more someone is likeable, the more we should forgive that person's sins. In point of example: If we had found out that SNAPE had homosexual feelings for, let's say, Professor Flitwick, would Rowling write her books in such a way that we are to forgive him?

And the sad thing is that kids worldwide are now trained and conditioned to take moral stance against God's on this.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Dumbledore's sexuality no bearing on the story... "

Right. So there is no need to bring it up. But she did. And so now we

have kids all over the world asking their parents what " gay " is and

whether ornot it is morally acceptable. Kids who come from religious

backgrounds that say it's NOT accepatable are now going to question

their religion, or question the fact that they shelled out $30.00 a

pop on average for Rowling's books.

If she would have kept her mouth shut, we would not be having this

debate right now and neither would anyone else.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Dumbledore's sexuality no bearing on the story... "

Right. So there is no need to bring it up. But she did. And so now we

have kids all over the world asking their parents what " gay " is and

whether ornot it is morally acceptable. Kids who come from religious

backgrounds that say it's NOT accepatable are now going to question

their religion, or question the fact that they shelled out $30.00 a

pop on average for Rowling's books.

If she would have kept her mouth shut, we would not be having this

debate right now and neither would anyone else.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

{snip}

>

> Parents did not have a say in whether their child should be given the

> information that Rowling imparted, without having been asked directly

> or indirectly, to these children. That's the difference.

>

Thank you again for the clarification. I certainly agree that parents should

have a say in

what (not) to expose their children to!

> In your scenario, a parent would determine if their child would be

> allowed to read this sort of book and that parent would determine how

> to broach the subject in subsequent discussions (which, I imagine,

> would come about rather quickly during the reading of the book).

My scenario, actually, was intended to remove the need for such discussion by

showing

the child that it is possible for couples to be formed by two people of the same

sex. The

type of story I had in mind does not revolve around the preference as being

unusual..I had

envisioned something more along the lines of " boy fights dragon/witch/evil

wizard and

saves the prince (instead of the princess) and they live happily ever after, the

end, " in

which the homosexuality is no more significant than the heterosexuality implied

by classic

fairy tales. My hope would be that a child raised with such stories, in addition

to the usual

repertoire of juvenile literature would find " Aunt Sally is married to Aunt

Anne " no more

remarkable as a statement than " Grandma is married to Grandpa, " or " Mommy is

Aspie, "

and would respond with neither grief nor confusion to the revelation that a book

character

is gay.

>

> With what happened, all of a sudden, 1,600 children are thrown by

> something they had never anticipated and it opens all sorts of doors

> that some children may not be able to handle thereby causing them

> untold grief and confusion. This is terribly thoughtless on

> Rowling's part and potentially dangerous to those children who are

> very sensitive to such issues.

>

Unless I've misunderstood, you've chosen not to make your son aware of gay

relationships

because you fear that it would lead into discussion of sexual themes that are

inappropriate

for his age and would be likely to cause him undue distress. It had not occurred

to me that

knowledge of the former would necessarily lead into the latter, but since your

judgement

is no doubt based on personal knowledge of your son and his reactions, I assume

that it is

sound. As stated above, I respect your right to choose what to expose him to,

and I think

he's fortunate to have you making a conscientious effort to protect his

innocence

{snip}

> It is the same with Dumbledore's preferences. It is immaterial to

> the storyline and does not add pertinent information regarding the

> motives of any of the characters.

>

While I don't personally believe that the revelation was an entirely worthless

addition to the

character, I do agree that Rowling could have found a more discreet way to share

the

information with those who did want it.

In any case, thank you for your patience in clarifying your position. My initial

interpretation

of your post made very little sense, and I am glad to see that my assumption

that I'd

missed something was correct

Meeks

[Guest guest]

" Unless I've misunderstood, you've chosen not to make your son aware

of gay relationships because you fear that it would lead into

discussion of sexual themes that are inappropriate for his age and

would be likely to cause him undue distress. It had not occurred to me

that knowledge of the former would necessarily lead into the latter,

but since your judgement is no doubt based on personal knowledge of

your son and his reactions, I assume that it is sound. "

Having trained to be a teacher, I can tell you that children on the

elementary school level feel very uncomfortable when they see or hear

of something that is of a homosexal nature and express this in their

own terms by saying that it feels " unnatural " , " unusual " and

even " scary " to them.

Additionally, when they see things like gay pride parades on TV where

men are dancing around in skimpy clothing and kissing each other, or

where transexuals with breasts and mustaches are running feathers over

their shoulder and acting silly, horror and shock are the emotions

children most express.

I believe it is for this reason that Raven intuitively would want to

prevent her child's exposure to this sort of thing.

Unnatural is as uinnatural does, and I think children, being innocent,

can recognize unnatural behavior when they see it, and be

appropriately traumatized by it. It is our duty as adults to spare

them from it.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Unless I've misunderstood, you've chosen not to make your son aware

of gay relationships because you fear that it would lead into

discussion of sexual themes that are inappropriate for his age and

would be likely to cause him undue distress. It had not occurred to me

that knowledge of the former would necessarily lead into the latter,

but since your judgement is no doubt based on personal knowledge of

your son and his reactions, I assume that it is sound. "

Having trained to be a teacher, I can tell you that children on the

elementary school level feel very uncomfortable when they see or hear

of something that is of a homosexal nature and express this in their

own terms by saying that it feels " unnatural " , " unusual " and

even " scary " to them.

Additionally, when they see things like gay pride parades on TV where

men are dancing around in skimpy clothing and kissing each other, or

where transexuals with breasts and mustaches are running feathers over

their shoulder and acting silly, horror and shock are the emotions

children most express.

I believe it is for this reason that Raven intuitively would want to

prevent her child's exposure to this sort of thing.

Unnatural is as uinnatural does, and I think children, being innocent,

can recognize unnatural behavior when they see it, and be

appropriately traumatized by it. It is our duty as adults to spare

them from it.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/26/2007 10:46:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

Fear is not the correct term, meeks. There are many subjects that a young child need not know about until they are mature enough to handle the implications and realities attached to individual subjects.

That is one of the things that upset me about this. When I was a child, not so long ago really, we didn't begin thinking about sex and such until we were early teens. Sure, some of the guys would sneak looks at magazines and such, but that was more curiosity rather than blatant sexuality that is it today. There is no need to give graphic "education" to children as young as kindergarten, as happens in some schools. Kids don't need that kind of detail to understand what you mean you say "Bad touching."

People wonder why kids are having so much sex and being so violent. The answer is simple: we don't let them BE kids. Our cultures, primarily an extreme libertine handful, to force sex on the kids at ever younger ages. I've seen interviews with "sex educators" from schools that are opposed to ANY age of consent. These people are a large part of the problem.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/26/2007 10:46:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ravenmagic2003@... writes:

Fear is not the correct term, meeks. There are many subjects that a young child need not know about until they are mature enough to handle the implications and realities attached to individual subjects.

That is one of the things that upset me about this. When I was a child, not so long ago really, we didn't begin thinking about sex and such until we were early teens. Sure, some of the guys would sneak looks at magazines and such, but that was more curiosity rather than blatant sexuality that is it today. There is no need to give graphic "education" to children as young as kindergarten, as happens in some schools. Kids don't need that kind of detail to understand what you mean you say "Bad touching."

People wonder why kids are having so much sex and being so violent. The answer is simple: we don't let them BE kids. Our cultures, primarily an extreme libertine handful, to force sex on the kids at ever younger ages. I've seen interviews with "sex educators" from schools that are opposed to ANY age of consent. These people are a large part of the problem.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.