Ron and Hermione - the definitive answer
Lauren
OotP. She loved it, and comes out at the end of five stories as firm a
Ron/Hermione shipper as ever. She loves all Weasleys.
I said "Did you know that some people think that Harry and Hermione will end
up together?" and she said "That's ridiculous - after everything Ron has
done for her ? And he bought her perfume !"
Well, that is good enough for me.
Though she does know that I quite like the idea of Ron/Harry - and the other
day she said, completely out of the blue "If Harry and Ron do end up
together, I hope that Harry changes his name to Harry Weasley, I don't want
Ron to stop being a Weasley." Wise words.
Lauren
EBM
your seven-year-old daughter that the Harry Potter children books are
condoning, supporting, and/or eluding to same sex romantic relationships?
Just wondering :-|
--
E. Meyers
"Only through black and white principles can
a man distinguish between good and evil." - Mr. A.
___
"Lauren" <richard.the.t...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3f794fb7$0$269$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Cinemalad5
your seven-year-old daughter that the Harry Potter children books are
condoning, supporting, and/or eluding to same sex romantic relationships?
Just wondering :-| >>
I think she meant that SHE was condoning same-sex romantic relationships,
which, as a liberal, I feel is a good thing. (No, I don't expect everyone to
feel the same way...and if you do, well, let's agree to disagree on the issue.)
And how telling it is that a CHILD could think of it, without any hint of
contempt or predjudice.
DM
No, I agree with EBM here. There is something wrong with a parent reading to a
7-year-old about 15-year-old characters and all they can discuss is the characters'
sexual orientation.
What they hell are you people reading in these books that I just don't see? It's
an innocent story. All these slash fantasies are the products of sick minds, not
'liberal' minds.
--
DM
--
,_,
(O,O)
( )
-"-"-
"No... not exactly..." said Hermione slowly. "More... wondering... I suppose
we're doing the right thing... I think... aren't we?"
Harry and Ron looked at each other.
"Well, that clears that up," said Ron. "It would've been really annoying if you
hadn't explained yourself properly."
HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+++FF= QA
CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++ HP/He-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
Kish
> Cinemalad5 wrote:
>
>
> What they hell are you people reading in these books that I just don't see? It's
> an innocent story. All these slash fantasies are the products of sick minds, not
> 'liberal' minds.
Probably the most popular subject of discussion about the books is, "Who
will X wind up with?" This says dubious things about humanity in
general, but "Hermione should wind up with Ginny" or "Harry should wind
up with Ron" is no less proper for seven-year-old minds than "Hermione
should wind up with Harry" or "Hermione should wind up with Ron."
LouAnn
Not to be judgemental about homosexually is one thing --but to openly
suggest the creation of such a union to a child is perverse!!!!
HPCL--LouAnn
Kish
> Here Here DM
>
> Not to be judgemental about homosexually is one thing --but to openly
> suggest the creation of such a union to a child is perverse!!!!
Perverse? That's certainly a (negative) judgment.
LouAnn
>
> And how telling it is that a CHILD could think of it, without any hint of
> contempt or predjudice.
Of course first she is only 7 and she is being raised by a mother who is
suggesting that two heterosexual males fall in love and get married. You
think this is 'healthy'?
Remember the little girl was the one who offered the Hermione and Ron
match.
>"Did you know that some people think that Harry and Hermione will end
>up together?" and she said "That's ridiculous - after everything Ron has
>done for her ? And he bought her perfume !"
Worried....LouAnn
Kish
> HELLO???
>
>
>>And how telling it is that a CHILD could think of it, without any hint of
>>contempt or predjudice.
>
>
>
> Of course first she is only 7 and she is being raised by a mother who is
> suggesting that two heterosexual males fall in love and get married. You
> think this is 'healthy'?
Sure. What's unhealthy about it?
Rick n
made me laugh.like somebody said kids say darnest things.also teaching
your kids like everybody is good thing in my book
LouAnn
"Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mfqeb.5434$rh2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
Yes Honey perverse, absurd, deviated, twisted....... This woman is telling
her SEVEN year old daughter not 17 year old --that she likes the idea of two
known and establish heterosexual males to get together. So in essence she is
telling her daughter that she's hoping Harry and Ron turn GAY. Once
again--that's healthy
>Though she does know that I quite like the idea of Ron/Harry
REALLY worried ....LouAnn
Miss Anthrope
I don't think the poster was suggesting she was reading slash fan
fiction, with Ron & Harry doing unspeakable things with broomsticks on
the Quidditch pitch, to her child. She seemed to be indicating that her
child found same sex relationships to be a normal part of life, not
something perverse. And it was a fairly short post. I'm willing to bet
the romantic lives of the characters are not all they discuss in the
books. I think (not wanting to put words in your mouth wherever you are,
Lauren, this is an inference) she might have posted this particular story
about her child as there has been much, much discussion of 'ships of late
on the ng.
I probably shouldn't post this. We should all just Google the threads
where this is discussed ad infinitum, ad nauseum, and read the fruitless
results there.
Carolyn
PS Ron & Harry's walk through the bushes in the moonlight the night of
the Yule Ball would have made me raise a suspicious eyebrow (actually, I
probably would have said to myself, "Oh, poor Hermione!") were I at
school with them! ;^)
Kish
> "Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:mfqeb.5434$rh2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>LouAnn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Here Here DM
>>>
>>> Not to be judgemental about homosexually is one thing --but to openly
>>>suggest the creation of such a union to a child is perverse!!!!
>>
>>Perverse? That's certainly a (negative) judgment.
(i.e., not consistent with "not to be judgmental about homosexuality.")
>>
>
>
>
>
> Yes Honey perverse, absurd, deviated, twisted....... This woman is telling
> her SEVEN year old daughter not 17 year old --that she likes the idea of two
> known and establish heterosexual males to get together. So in essence she is
> telling her daughter that she's hoping Harry and Ron turn GAY. Once
> again--that's healthy
Quite healthy, yes. I'm sorry you think there's something wrong with
homosexuality, and that you assume everyone must agree with you about
that, but I'm glad Lauren doesn't see it that way, and that her daughter
is apparently being raised to understand homosexuality as something
normal and healthy.
Miss Anthrope
> LouAnn wrote:
>
> > "Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:mfqeb.5434$rh2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >>LouAnn wrote:
> >>
> > Yes Honey perverse, absurd, deviated, twisted....... This woman is
telling
> > her SEVEN year old daughter not 17 year old --that she likes the idea
of two
> > known and establish heterosexual males to get together.
And just to be completely clinical, how precisely is it "known and
establish"ed that Harry & Ron are heterosexual? I think they are straight
too, but human sexuality is a slippery little monkey, and I've known
quite established (married, kids, etc.) heterosexuals to come out of the
closet (and in one memorable case, a straight man who decided he was
actually a woman, but still wished to remain with his wife, even after
the sex change operation.).
I agree that any sort of discussion with a 7 year old of any possible
sexual intercourse between any of the characters in Harry Potter is
somewhat innapropriate, but giggling about girlfriends or boyfriends in
any combination is harmless in my (I'm sure hopelessly weird & liberal)
book.
LouAnn
The key word is Heterosexual not Homosexual This isn't Gay Hogwarts
where the fans are HOPING Neville and Colin hit it off or that Harry
finally finds love and security with his new found bum buddy Zachariah
Smith.
Please explain to me WHY anyone would 'hope' someone turns gay.
I have a 7 year old grandson and if I ever suggested to him that Harry and
Ron get married, he would look at me like I was out of my mind.
And besides Harry has enough problems with the Dursleys just being a wizard.
I can see it now "Uncle Vernon--Aunt Petunia I have something to tell you
that all really make your day!"
Even more worried and praying for the seven year old
HPCL--LouAnn
Kish
> "Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:Wsqeb.5437$ys2...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>LouAnn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>HELLO???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And how telling it is that a CHILD could think of it, without any hint
>
> of
>
>>>>contempt or predjudice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course first she is only 7 and she is being raised by a mother who is
>>>suggesting that two heterosexual males fall in love and get married. You
>>>think this is 'healthy'?
>>
>>Sure. What's unhealthy about it?
>>
>
>
> The key word is Heterosexual not Homosexual
So you would be equally upset if someone expressed a hope for an
established homosexual to be involved with an opposite-sex character?
>
> Please explain to me WHY anyone would 'hope' someone turns gay.
Because that person thinks that person and X same-sex character (Harry
and Ron, in this case) would make a good couple, presumably.
> And besides Harry has enough problems with the Dursleys just being a wizard.
> I can see it now "Uncle Vernon--Aunt Petunia I have something to tell you
> that all really make your day!"
As if they'd care. (Yes, I expect the Dursleys are screamingly
homophobic, but they're already convinced Harry is so "abnormal" that
further "abnormality" couldn't have much impact.) For that matter, why
would Harry tell them?
Ben Smith
a lighter note I know some people who'd now say, "The Greeks started it."
Ben Smith
no better than homsexual relationships. Now if the people who are saying
that homosexual relationships are bad but had sex in a heterosexual
relationship, well then they'd be considered hypocrites since both a deemed
just as sinful.
Miss Anthrope
"Ben Smith" <chriz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bldp1j$b2uh1$1...@ID-207118.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:i_qeb.5450$EQ2...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> >
> > homosexuality, and that you assume everyone must agree with you about
> > that, but I'm glad Lauren doesn't see it that way, and that her
daughter
> > is apparently being raised to understand homosexuality as something
> > normal and healthy.
> >
> Healthy? Not really if you act upon it, it's the easiest way to get
aids. On
> a lighter note I know some people who'd now say, "The Greeks started
it."
Having unprotected sex- with anyone- is the easiest way to get the HIV
virus. Wear a condom, the odds plummet.
BTW- according to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#international), app. 50% of the people
currently living with AIDS are women, most of whom, I assume were not
having sex with homosexual men. Let's not blithely give out
misinformation about something that could potentially kill someone, shall
we?
Charles
"Lauren" <richard.the.t...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3f794fb7$0$269$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
together (which I doubt very seriously) that whatever makes them happy...
But as for the Lauren and her daughter I think its wrong to tell a child
that
young about such things, so stop.
Lauren
seven-year-old's take on things, as we are, on the most part, slightly old
for the HP world !
> And just to be completely clinical, how precisely is it "known and
> establish"ed that Harry & Ron are heterosexual?
Valid point.
> I agree that any sort of discussion with a 7 year old of any possible
> sexual intercourse between any of the characters in Harry Potter is
> somewhat innapropriate, but giggling about girlfriends or boyfriends in
> any combination is harmless in my (I'm sure hopelessly weird & liberal)
> book.
Exactly - we haven't discussed their actual sex-lives, but she wants Ron and
Hermione to "end up together", and she doesn't mean the last chapter of book
seven will be X-rated, she means in a
Disney-riding-off-on-his-white-horse-to-his-castle way. I think that Ron and
Harry 'ending up together' is just as valid, and not because I want to
imagine them having sex, but because they are really good together (Ron is
the thing he'll miss most, after all !). She knows that some men are gay,
and it doesn't give her the creeps, not even when applied to her beloved
Ron - as long as he's happy, and that Harry changes his name !
> So in essence she is
> > > telling her daughter that she's hoping Harry and Ron turn GAY.
That they turn *out* to be gay !
I would have thought that a community that have accepted Hagrid's parents
and Fleur's grandparents would be quite happy with a gay couple.
I really really don't think it will happen guys - we got a fade-out instead
of Harry's first kiss - no-one is going to be hanging out in the public
toilets in Hogsmead, ok ? But how positive an image for the gay community
would it be if Harry was gay ?
Anyway I am very pleased that my daughter would accept it as perfectly
normal if it did happen. I can't think of a film that she has seen that
actually has gay characters in it, and *that* isn't normal, is it ?
Lauren (Liberal in London)
Lauren
news:20030930195541...@mb-m05.aol.com...
Absolutely - 5 stars for Cinemalad !!!
Lauren
Lauren
to a
> 7-year-old about 15-year-old characters and all they can discuss is the
characters'
> sexual orientation.
All they can discuss ? Well, thank you very much !
In the context of the recent threads on Harry/Hermione vs Ron/Hermione, I
put forward the view of an innocent seven-year-old child.
Yes, as part of our discussions as we have read the books, along with the
Greed of the Dursleys, the Bravery and Loyalty of Ron in the Chess Game, the
Betrayal of Percy, one of our topics has been Who They Love.
Almost entirely driven by the fact that my daughter is in love with Ron. She
is firm in the belief that Ron and Hermione love each other. She thinks
Harry will notice Ginny in book 6. But she thinks of a loving gay
relationship as just as normal and acceptable as a hetrosexual one, and her
only problem with the idea of Ron/Harry is that she doesn't want him to
become Ron Potter, ok ? I think that that is lovely.
Lauren
Lauren
Thank you Kish - I thought it was really sweet that her only problem would
be if Harry wanted Ron to change his name !
Look, not that it's anyone's business, but she has never heard of rimming or
anal sex - not that they are exclusively homosexual practices by a very long
chalk - but she does know that two men or two women can *love* each other,
and she is as matter of fact about it as she is about plants producing
oxygen. This is a very good thing.
Lauren
Van Bagnol
> Cinemalad5 wrote:
>
> > << Trying not to be too judgmental here, but are you saying you are
> > teaching your seven-year-old daughter that the Harry Potter
> > children books are condoning, supporting, and/or eluding to same
> > sex romantic relationships?
> >
> > Just wondering :-| >>
> >
> > I think she meant that SHE was condoning same-sex romantic
> > relationships, which, as a liberal, I feel is a good thing. (No, I
> > don't expect everyone to feel the same way...and if you do, well,
> > let's agree to disagree on the issue.)
> >
> > And how telling it is that a CHILD could think of it, without any hint of
> > contempt or predjudice.
That reminded me of a time several years ago when my then preschool-age
son was talking about one of his classmates during my visit. "Which boy
is he," I asked, trying to make him out, "The black one, the white one,
the Asian one, which?
"I dunno," he replied. "He's the one who sits near the rug."
I had to identify him by picking out the color of his shirt.
> No, I agree with EBM here. There is something wrong with a parent
> reading to a 7-year-old about 15-year-old characters and all they can
> discuss is the characters' sexual orientation.
I think you're reading too much into it. The child basically wondered,
"If Harry married Ron, would he be Harry Weasley or would Ron be Ronald
Potter?" I don't think her musings went beyond that. It's no worse than
children pretending their cat marries their dog. Heck, my daughter once
wanted the chess pieces to get married and have all the pawns attend the
ceremony.
> What they hell are you people reading in these books that I just
> don't see? It's an innocent story. All these slash fantasies are the
> products of sick minds, not 'liberal' minds.
Well, on a deeper level, Rowling does introduce recurring themes about
prejudices and bigoted aversion to miscegenation. Witness the treatment
of Hagrid's mother, Riddle's hatred of Muggles and mixed-bloods, the
poor treatment of other sentient magical creatures such as elves and
centaurs. Contrast the Hermione's parents' acceptance of her with Vernon
Dursley's revulsion to anything different, let alone magic. They don't
deal with sexuality, but rather the broader issue of acceptance.
What you call 'slash fantasies' in this case seemed simply to be a
teaching philosophy about tolerance, not a graphic depiction of Harry's
honeymoon night.
The other day my 8-year-old asked why her nipples get hard. I explained
the basic physiology of thermal regulation and goosebumps and all that,
and suggested she try an experiment: get a warm washcloth and an ice
cube and in the privacy of the bathroom, see what happens. She giggled,
but was more uneasy with the fact that ice cubes are cold than with
anything else.
And after having tried the experiment on myself, I agree with her. :-)
Van
--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
...enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
...feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
...thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"
Julian Day
> DM wrote:
>
> Probably the most popular subject of discussion about the books is, "Who
> will X wind up with?" This says dubious things about humanity in
Well, I think given that we are the product of countless generations of
sexual reproduction it's not surprising that most of us are rather
interested in it. Our potential ancestors who weren't didn't have many
descendents, so a fairly keen interest in sex is pretty inevitable to the
human species, I'd say.
>....but "Hermione should wind up with Ginny" or "Harry should wind
> up with Ron" is no less proper for seven-year-old minds than "Hermione
> should wind up with Harry" or "Hermione should wind up with Ron."
Well, I'd be inclined to think that kids ought to be introduced to the
heterosexual version of things before the homosexual one.....but what do I
know?
Julian
Julian Day
"Miss Anthrope" <c.ra...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:FJueb.159988$0v4.12...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Ben Smith" <chriz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bldp1j$b2uh1$1...@ID-207118.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:i_qeb.5450$EQ2...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> aids. On
> > a lighter note I know some people who'd now say, "The Greeks started
> it."
>
> Having unprotected sex- with anyone- is the easiest way to get the HIV
> virus. Wear a condom, the odds plummet.
And I feel I should add that one shouldn't assume that male homosexual sex
is synonymous with anal intercourse,
Julian
Julian Day
"LouAnn" <dca...@infoave.com> wrote in message
news:bldfrs$90ma$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>
> "Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:Wsqeb.5437$ys2...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
As I understand it people don't *turn* gay; our sexual preference is
something that we are born with. What would be wrong with Harry turning out
to be gay?
Julian
rowena
"Charles" <ask...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vnkvklq...@corp.supernews.com...
Charles, who the hell are you to tell Lauren how to raise her children? I
think it's great that the 7-year-old daughter is fine with the possibility
of Harry ending up with someone who isn't a girl. So many 7 year olds (and
17 year olds, and 27, and 37...) use "gay" as an insult - but Lauren's
daughter's only concern is with Ron staying a Weasley!
Rowena.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 18/09/2003
DM
It should be less proper!
If any consenting adult wants to have sex with another consenting adult, that's fine.
Their business, not mine. But suggesting to a 7 year-old that underaged characters in
a book geared toward underaged readers having homosexual relationships is 'normal' or
'cute', that is really screwed up.
--
DM
--
,_,
(O,O)
( )
-"-"-
"No... not exactly..." said Hermione slowly. "More... wondering... I suppose we're
doing the right thing... I think... aren't we?"
Harry and Ron looked at each other.
"Well, that clears that up," said Ron. "It would've been really annoying if you
hadn't explained yourself properly."
HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+++FF= QA CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++
HP/He-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
DM
> "Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:mfqeb.5434$rh2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> > LouAnn wrote:
> >
> > > Here Here DM
> > >
> > > Not to be judgemental about homosexually is one thing --but to
> openly
> > > suggest the creation of such a union to a child is perverse!!!!
> >
> > Perverse? That's certainly a (negative) judgment.
> >
>
> I don't think the poster was suggesting she was reading slash fan
> fiction, with Ron & Harry doing unspeakable things with broomsticks on
> the Quidditch pitch, to her child. She seemed to be indicating that her
> child found same sex relationships to be a normal part of life, not
> something perverse. And it was a fairly short post. I'm willing to bet
> the romantic lives of the characters are not all they discuss in the
> books. I think (not wanting to put words in your mouth wherever you are,
> Lauren, this is an inference) she might have posted this particular story
> about her child as there has been much, much discussion of 'ships of late
> on the ng.
Maybe I am reading too much into it. I just find something seriously wrong
with people who take an innocent story with underaged characters and suggest
there may be gay couplings, even though there is absolutely no hint of
homosexuality. To a 7- year-old, at that! You want to discuss sexual
orientations of Harry Potter to a teenager, fine, not to a 7 year-old.
I think it's very sad that the innocence in these stories is being taken away
from some children by parents who want to appear more open-minded.
And yes, I did see the PS in your post. It's something to consider, but I
just don't see that it has any sexual cognition.
DM
I think as soon as the original poster put a message in a public forum
suggesting she teaches her child questionable (at best) points about
relationships, it's open for discussion.
"Gay" isn't an insult if it only involves consenting adults. But to suggest
"gay" is normal or cute to a 7 year-old when discussing underaged characters in
a book with no hint of such, it's wrong.
John Fisher
> "Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:Fopeb.5426$iL1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> >....but "Hermione should wind up with Ginny" or "Harry should wind
> > up with Ron" is no less proper for seven-year-old minds than "Hermione
> > should wind up with Harry" or "Hermione should wind up with Ron."
>
> Well, I'd be inclined to think that kids ought to be introduced to the
> heterosexual version of things before the homosexual one.....but what do I
> know?
I don't see that it's necessary to discuss it in those terms
with very small kids. For example, I used to visit my sister
with my partner when her kids were, say, 6 and 4, and I was
Uncle John, so who was G.? That was the time when the kids
were very keen on working out who everyone was and how they
were connected with each other.
So my sister explained how grownups sometimes have Special
People, who often live together, and do things together,
because they love each other specially. Daddy was her
special person, and she was Daddy's special person; and they
went round the various couples in their lives. And G. is
Uncle John's special person.
What on earth is wrong with that? It's the truth (always a
good thing to tell a child) and it's within their
understanding. And it's just the same sort of discussion
that Lauren had with her daughter.
I really can't see the problem. Unless people think that
when Lauren's daughter mentioned the possibility of Ron and
Harry getting together, Lauren should immediately have said
"Oh, no, what a yucky, nasty idea! Only yucky nasty boys
marry other boys! Ugh, whatever made you think of such a
wicked, disgusting idea! It makes me feel sick!"
That'll help to make the world a better place.
Oh, and after that, she can move on to explain how yucky it
is that Ginny is hooking up with Dean...
--John
--Who occasionally wonders what the **** he's doing here
--
John Fisher jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk
John Fisher
> If any consenting adult wants to have sex with another consenting adult, that's fine.
> Their business, not mine. But suggesting to a 7 year-old that underaged characters in
> a book geared toward underaged readers having homosexual relationships is 'normal' or
> 'cute', that is really screwed up.
The suggestion was her daughter's. I repeat, what should
Lauren have said? "Ugh, that's a yucky idea"? When
she probably has gay friends of her own, whom her
daughter knows? Or what?
John Fisher
> Maybe I am reading too much into it. I just find something seriously wrong
> with people who take an innocent story with underaged characters and suggest
> there may be gay couplings, even though there is absolutely no hint of
> homosexuality. To a 7- year-old, at that! You want to discuss sexual
> orientations of Harry Potter to a teenager, fine, not to a 7 year-old.
Lauren didn't do this. I find it quite strange that you
should repeat, again and again, the implication that she is
doing this. I quote her:
> the other day she said, completely out of the blue "If Harry
> and Ron do end up together, I hope that Harry changes his
> name to Harry Weasley, I don't want Ron to stop being a
> Weasley."
Her *daughter* mentioned it, out of the blue. Lauren
suggested nothing of the sort, and *I* suggest that you
should stop saying that she did.
Andy Platt
> "Gay" isn't an insult if it only involves consenting adults. But to
suggest
> "gay" is normal or cute to a 7 year-old when discussing underaged
characters in
> a book with no hint of such, it's wrong.
That's just crap unless you also don't talk about a possible relationship
between Ron & Hermione or Harry and Hermione since they are still underage
for *sex*. Wait a minute - we weren't talking about sex but you seem to
think that to be gay you have to be an adult which, I guess, means that to
be gay is just about sex?
I think you need to re-think a little here.
Andy.
--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
Lauren
news:bleklg$k4r$3...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> DM (dm...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> > If any consenting adult wants to have sex with another consenting adult,
that's fine.
> > Their business, not mine. But suggesting to a 7 year-old that underaged
characters in
> > a book geared toward underaged readers having homosexual relationships
is 'normal' or
> > 'cute', that is really screwed up.
>
> The suggestion was her daughter's. I repeat, what should
> Lauren have said? "Ugh, that's a yucky idea"? When
> she probably has gay friends of her own, whom her
> daughter knows? Or what?
And Hermione is just as underage - should I say anything about my daughter
wanting Ron and Hermione to end up together ??
And anyway, they won't be underage for long - anything goes in book seven
does it ??
Yes, we have close gay friends and family - my daughter knows that Uncle
David and John live together and is perfectly happy about it.
Lauren
Lauren
> think it's great that the 7-year-old daughter is fine with the possibility
> of Harry ending up with someone who isn't a girl. So many 7 year olds (and
> 17 year olds, and 27, and 37...) use "gay" as an insult - but Lauren's
> daughter's only concern is with Ron staying a Weasley!
>
> Rowena.
> Charles, who the hell are you to tell Lauren how to raise her
children? I
> think it's great that the 7-year-old daughter is fine with the
possibility
> of Harry ending up with someone who isn't a girl. So many 7 year
olds (and
> 17 year olds, and 27, and 37...) use "gay" as an insult - but
Lauren's
> daughter's only concern is with Ron staying a Weasley!
>
> Rowena.
Thank you for this - I thought I was losing my marbles here for a
minute !
Did I say that my seven-year-old daughter watches gay porn ? No, all I
said was that she finds it just as valid for Harry to love Ron as for him to
love Hermione, which is fine by me.
And I just love it that she doesn't want Ron to change his name !
When I read the books I have to stop every time I say 'Ron' to give
her time to say 'Oh Ronnie' and faint ! Needless to say, I am very proud of
her choice for her first 'crush'.
Lauren
Lauren
news:3f7ad9e0$1...@news101.his.com...
Thanks for this Andy - you are absolutely right - none of the people who
have freaked out have had a *word* to say against the idea of Ron/Hermione,
so it's not the idea of two people (who are only months from the age of
consent anyway) having feelings for each other - it's purely because they
are both male, so they would go from 'gosh, does your scar hurt?' to full
anal sex in about 5 minutes !
By the time they come back in book six, they will be of age you know !!!
Lauren
EBM
question is this question: What type of romantic/sexual relationships are
being condoned, supported, and eluded to in the J. K. Rowling Harry Potter
children books?
I daresay, NOT homosexual. To even suggest the friendship between Harry and
Ron is more than a "best buddy and pal" thing and has "homosexual
tendencies" is ludicrous to say the least!!! Rowling is writing these books
to illustrate principles (you know, good vs. evil), but also to portray
certain values. Now we may not all agree on these values, but they are
there whether you like it or not. You liberals with your Political Correct
agenda are so hell-bent to force your point of view on everyone that you not
only disregard these values, but incorrectly and perversely twist and
distort them, which are so blatantly otherwise. Do you call that
"tolerance?"
I know there are many posts and fanfics in this newsgroup that discuss
Harry/Ron, Harry/Draco ships and the like. I've even been know to discuss
such ships like Hermione/Ginny. Nevertheless, I find these to be in sarcasm
and jest. I know mine are, BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING IN ROWLING'S BOOKS TO
EVEN SUGGEST THESE HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP, NOTHING AT ALL!!!
I'm sorry for all you extreme social liberals out there that have a hard
time excepting the fact so many more people find the "traditional" and
"conservative" values so much more important than accepting and supporting
your so-called values. I really am.
Now, I know I can't tell you how to raise your children, nor do I want to.
However, understand this, I do have a hard time with the fact that you would
intentional perverse, twist, and distort the values portrayed by Rowling in
her books so to indoctrinate your extremely young and impressionable
children to a far different value system.
I other words, you are telling you seven-year-old to look at and view two
teenage boys who are nothing more than "best-of-buds" with no "homosexual
tendencies" as a pair of homosexuals. And to even go as far as to say that
that point of view and value system is way more common place in today's
society than it truly is.
Now, if you want to debate the "values" portrayed in the Harry Potter books
then bring it on - but it won't be much of a debate. ;-)
--
E. Meyers
"Only through black and white principles can
a man distinguish between good and evil." - Mr. A.
___
"Lauren" <richard.the.t...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3f794fb7$0$269$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> My seven-year-old daughter is mad about HP, and we just finished reading
> OotP. She loved it, and comes out at the end of five stories as firm a
> Ron/Hermione shipper as ever. She loves all Weasleys.
>
> I said "Did you know that some people think that Harry and Hermione will
end
> up together?" and she said "That's ridiculous - after everything Ron has
> done for her ? And he bought her perfume !"
>
> Well, that is good enough for me.
>
> Though she does know that I quite like the idea of Ron/Harry - and the
other
> day she said, completely out of the blue "If Harry and Ron do end up
> together, I hope that Harry changes his name to Harry Weasley, I don't
want
> Ron to stop being a Weasley." Wise words.
>
> Lauren
>
>
Nearly Headless Nick
> My seven-year-old daughter is mad about HP, and we just finished reading
> OotP. She loved it, and comes out at the end of five stories as firm a
> Ron/Hermione shipper as ever. She loves all Weasleys.
>
> I said "Did you know that some people think that Harry and Hermione will end
> up together?" and she said "That's ridiculous - after everything Ron has
> done for her ? And he bought her perfume !"
>
> Well, that is good enough for me.
>
> Though she does know that I quite like the idea of Ron/Harry - and the other
> day she said, completely out of the blue "If Harry and Ron do end up
> together, I hope that Harry changes his name to Harry Weasley, I don't want
> Ron to stop being a Weasley." Wise words.
>
> Lauren
From the mouths of babes - Lauren, I thought it unbelievably cute and
innocent that your daughter would say that Harry should change his
name so they could all be Weasleys.
I also applaud you for having brought up your daughter with such an
open and unprejudiced attitude. I wish more parents brought up their
kids with such values.
I think a lot of people confuse slash with porn. If you can have a
sweet romantic story between say Harry and Cho, or Ron and Hermione,
then why not with Harry and Ron?
EBM
intentional pervert, twist, and distort the values portrayed by Rowling in
her books so to indoctrinate your extremely young and impressionable
children to a far different value system.
I other words, unlike the joking going on in the newsgroup, you are
seriously telling
your seven-year-old to look at and view two teenage boys who are nothing
more
than "best-of-buds" with no "homosexual tendencies" as a pair of
homosexuals.
Er, that make sense, right? Of course NOT!!! And to even go as far as to
say
that that point of view and value system is way more common place in today's
society than it truly is.
Now, if you want to debate the "values" portrayed in the Harry Potter books
then bring it on - but it won't be much of a debate. ;-)
--
E. Meyers
"Only through black and white principles can
a man distinguish between good and evil." - Mr. A.
___
Tim Behrendsen
> I daresay, NOT homosexual. To even suggest the friendship between Harry and
> Ron is more than a "best buddy and pal" thing and has "homosexual
> tendencies" is ludicrous to say the least!!! Rowling is writing these books
> to illustrate principles (you know, good vs. evil), but also to portray
> certain values. Now we may not all agree on these values, but they are
> there whether you like it or not. You liberals with your Political Correct
> agenda are so hell-bent to force your point of view on everyone that you not
> only disregard these values, but incorrectly and perversely twist and
> distort them, which are so blatantly otherwise. Do you call that
> "tolerance?"
First of all, let me just say that I'm uncomfortable with the idea of introducing
homosexuality into these books, particularly to seven-year-olds. That said...
By you're being a bit hypocritical here talking about "forcing of viewpoints" when you go
on to say...
> Now, I know I can't tell you how to raise your children, nor do I want to.
> However, understand this, I do have a hard time with the fact that you would
> intentional perverse, twist, and distort the values portrayed by Rowling in
> her books so to indoctrinate your extremely young and impressionable
> children to a far different value system.
You say you "don't want to tell her how to raise her children", but then you go on and do
it.
> I other words, you are telling you seven-year-old to look at and view two
> teenage boys who are nothing more than "best-of-buds" with no "homosexual
> tendencies" as a pair of homosexuals. And to even go as far as to say that
> that point of view and value system is way more common place in today's
> society than it truly is.
I freely admit I'm uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, because that's the way my
brain is wired. However, I'm more uncomfortable with hatred and intolerance, including
intolerance of teenagers who might happen to be gay (it does happen, you know). It's none
of my business how two adults live their lives, and I don't particularly feel they should
be consigned to a life of hiding becuase certain people don't like it.
It's simply irrelevent to objective truth how common a "point of view and value system"
is. It is objectively true that people shouldn't be persecuted for being gay.
On the other hand, I don't think it's reasonable for homosexuality to be regarded as
"normal", because it simply isn't. The purpose of sex of reproduction, and homosexuality
is a flaw in that mechanism. But that issue has nothing to do with moral judgments. There
is nothing immoral about homosexuality, and too many people confuse these issues with
morality.
> Now, if you want to debate the "values" portrayed in the Harry Potter books
> then bring it on - but it won't be much of a debate. ;-)
Considering that "love" is one of the overarching values in the HP books, that's probably
relevent to the discussion.
Julian Day
>
> I know there are many posts and fanfics in this newsgroup that discuss
> Harry/Ron, Harry/Draco ships and the like. I've even been know to discuss
> such ships like Hermione/Ginny. Nevertheless, I find these to be in
sarcasm
> and jest. I know mine are, BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING IN ROWLING'S BOOKS TO
> EVEN SUGGEST THESE HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP, NOTHING AT ALL!!!
I wouldn't want there to be homosexual sex in HP any more than I'd want
there to be heterosexual sex in any explicit way; they're not that kind of
book. But I have to say I think it's a shame that there aren't any gay
characters.....at least, not so as you'd notice. Gay people are part of the
world we live in. JKR has made a great effort to show a diverse social and
ethnic mix at Hogwarts; I'd also like to see an acknowledgement that not
everyone is straight,
Julian
Lauren
> innocent that your daughter would say that Harry should change his
> name so they could all be Weasleys.
>
> I also applaud you for having brought up your daughter with such an
> open and unprejudiced attitude. I wish more parents brought up their
> kids with such values.
Many thanks Nick - I thought it was cute too - or I wouldn't have mentioned
it !
Lauren (Weasley is My King too !)
Markku Uttula
> On the other hand, I don't think it's reasonable for homosexuality
> to be regarded as "normal", because it simply isn't. The purpose of
> sex of reproduction, and homosexuality is a flaw in that mechanism.
Why are you trying to tie sex [*] with sexuality? Once you realise
that other of the forementioned is an action and the other one is a
feeling, you notice that there is no flaw in the mechanism. You can
reproduce without the feeling being involved and vice versa.
It should also be noted that sex is not for only the purposes of
reproduction, but also provides means to having fun. If you consider
this unnatural, I will seek for a while on the Internet, snice I
recall there being some animals (other than man) that do it "just for
the fun of it" (which in my books makes this part of the "natural
purpose" of having sex).
[*] I take it your meaning here is the act of sexual intercourse and
not one of the many other meanings of the word "sex".
--
Markku Uttula
Lauren
and
> Ron is more than a "best buddy and pal" thing and has "homosexual
> tendencies" is ludicrous to say the least!!!
But HOW is it any different from the people who think Ron fancies Hermione
?? They are Best Buddies too. And actually, I think that Ron actually does
fancy Hermione (note to self : these are fictional characters, do *not* talk
about them as if they really exist !), but Harry/Ron is still a valid
'ship'.
> I other words, unlike the joking going on in the newsgroup, you are
> seriously telling your seven-year-old to look at and view two teenage boys
who are
> nothing more than "best-of-buds" with no "homosexual tendencies" as a pair
of
> homosexuals.
I am telling her that that is always an option !
Lauren
Tim Behrendsen
news:VUCeb.221$rj7...@reader1.news.jippii.net...
> Tim Behrendsen wrote:
> > On the other hand, I don't think it's reasonable for homosexuality
> > to be regarded as "normal", because it simply isn't. The purpose of
> > sex of reproduction, and homosexuality is a flaw in that mechanism.
>
> Why are you trying to tie sex [*] with sexuality? Once you realise
> that other of the forementioned is an action and the other one is a
> feeling, you notice that there is no flaw in the mechanism. You can
> reproduce without the feeling being involved and vice versa.
I had already went through this discussion once a few months ago, and I don't really want
to get it into it all over again, but... :)
The purpose of mating is reproduction. The purpose of sexuality (i.e., the sex drive) is
to drive us toward reproduction. If we are driven toward the same gender, then
continuation of the species is stifled.
Sure, you can reproduce without any feelings, but that's not the point. The point is *why*
we have strong sexual feelings in the first place. It's to drive us to reproduce.
> It should also be noted that sex is not for only the purposes of
> reproduction, but also provides means to having fun. If you consider
> this unnatural, I will seek for a while on the Internet, snice I
> recall there being some animals (other than man) that do it "just for
> the fun of it" (which in my books makes this part of the "natural
> purpose" of having sex).
The "fun" of sex is a side effect, not a purpose. The purpose is reproduction, the "fun"
is make us want to do it. If we didn't have an intrinsic drive, the species probably would
have died out long ago.
Andy Platt
> But HOW is it any different from the people who think Ron fancies Hermione
> ?? They are Best Buddies too. And actually, I think that Ron actually does
> fancy Hermione (note to self : these are fictional characters, do *not*
talk
> about them as if they really exist !), but Harry/Ron is still a valid
> 'ship'.
I think you have to be a little careful here because I don't think anything
in the books would indicate that Harry and Ron are anything but straight.
So, while it's a fine question to ask, I think the answer has to be that
there could be no romantic attachment. Such analysis of the characters is,
rather obviously, beyond a seven year old, though, but I would believe that
any adult would be able to tell rather quickly that Ron & Harry are
straight.
Rick n
lauren did nothing wrong..i dont understand that few cant understand
that was child saying such cute thing....thiers nothing wrong with way
people love i mean love not sex...all ppl love not all gay people want
just sex just not hetrosexual ppl want love just sex......im just
giveing my 2 cents here..love is best in people no matter what sexual
ortation they are..i had say what i felt thank u
John Fisher
<t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> writes
>On the other hand, I don't think it's reasonable for homosexuality to
>be regarded as
>"normal", because it simply isn't.
Homosexuality is normal - for us homosexuals. It is, as they say, a
standard fitting in some models.
--
John Fisher jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk
Bojan Bugarin
Umbridge that several people in alt.fan.harry-potter looked around in
alarm, and then continued:
> If you consider
> this unnatural, I will seek for a while on the Internet, snice I
> recall there being some animals (other than man) that do it "just for
> the fun of it"
Dolphins, I believe, do that.
--
Bojan Bugarin
"Bad spellers of the world Untie!"
Bojan Bugarin
that several people in alt.fan.harry-potter looked around in alarm, and
then continued:
> Healthy? Not really if you act upon it, it's the easiest way to get aids.
According to some statistics, currently there are much more heterosexual
people that have AIDS then homosexuals. So the risk of getting AIDS is just
as high.
--
Bojan Bugarin
Looking for a FAQ?
<http://www.hogwarts-library.net/reference>
<http://www.m5p.com/~pravn/hp/faq.html>
John Fisher
writes
>extreme social liberals
What does this mean? I mean, 'liberal' just means someone in the
political centre. How can someone be in the extreme centre? And what's
the 'social' bit? Someone who does a lot of partying and pubbing and
clubbing?
Perhaps it's someone in the political centre who does an *extreme*
amount of partying and pubbing and clubbing. Actually, I know people
like that, come to think of it.
A: What do think about foundation hospitals?
XSL: MMMw-e-e-e-l, on the one hand they will bring decision-making
closer to the regions. On the other hand, there's the risk of
a two-tier health service. H-e-e-e-e-e-y, who cares? Let's
party!!!!!
Tim Behrendsen
news:ket2jot510wg.p...@40tude.net...
> > Healthy? Not really if you act upon it, it's the easiest way to get aids.
>
> According to some statistics, currently there are much more heterosexual
> people that have AIDS then homosexuals. So the risk of getting AIDS is just
> as high.
Well, let's not mislead with statistics. There are probably more hetero people with aids
than homosexuals in raw count, but that number is meaningless because there are about 20
times more heteros in the population than homosexuals. The *rate* among homosexuals is far
greater than heterosexuals, so the "risk" is much, much greater.
But so what? Lots of diseases are behaviorally based.
Bojan Bugarin
several people in alt.fan.harry-potter looked around in alarm, and then
continued:
> I'm sorry for all you extreme social liberals out there that have a hard
> time excepting the fact so many more people find the "traditional" and
> "conservative" values so much more important than accepting and supporting
> your so-called values. I really am.
I digress, but could you stop top-posting. Bottom-posting is considered the
"traditional" way of posting on Usenet. (I assume you're a conservative in
every aspect, not only concerning sexual preference.)
> I other words, you are telling you seven-year-old to look at and view two
> teenage boys who are nothing more than "best-of-buds" with no "homosexual
> tendencies" as a pair of homosexuals. And to even go as far as to say that
> that point of view and value system is way more common place in today's
> society than it truly is.
Lauren has already explained that her daughter didn't think of the word
"sex" when they talked about "ending up together". I really don't see what
values are jeopardised here.
Kish
> 'Hem, hem,' said EBM, in such a good imitation of Professor Umbridge that
> several people in alt.fan.harry-potter looked around in alarm, and then
> continued:
>
>
>>I other words, you are telling you seven-year-old to look at and view two
>>teenage boys who are nothing more than "best-of-buds" with no "homosexual
>>tendencies" as a pair of homosexuals. And to even go as far as to say that
>>that point of view and value system is way more common place in today's
>>society than it truly is.
>
>
> Lauren has already explained that her daughter didn't think of the word
> "sex" when they talked about "ending up together". I really don't see what
> values are jeopardised here.
The idea that "homosexuality is wrong," if you call that kind of bigotry
a value, is jeopardized. Thankfully.
Jule
> So my sister explained how grownups sometimes have Special
> People, who often live together, and do things together,
> because they love each other specially. Daddy was her
> special person, and she was Daddy's special person; and they
> went round the various couples in their lives. And G. is
> Uncle John's special person.
>
> What on earth is wrong with that? It's the truth (always a
> good thing to tell a child) and it's within their
> understanding. And it's just the same sort of discussion
> that Lauren had with her daughter.
Nothing at all wrong with that, I think that's pretty nice. Kids up
to a certain age tend to understand things in a very broad way, and
the further details of understanding arrive later as they're going
through puberty. Lauren's talk with her daughter sounded adorable to
me, and her daughter sounds a bit precocious, too.
I don't think many young children understand the more advanced
concepts in adult relationships, they just know that they exist, that
mommy and daddy love each other, etc. etc. So Lauren's daughter might
think of Ron and Harry as being exceptionally close, harkening to the
seamless gravitation of Harry to the Weasley family, how thoroughly
and unconditionally they accept him.
John Fisher
<richard.the.t...@dsl.pipex.com> writes
> Did I say that my seven-year-old daughter watches gay porn ? No, all I
>said was that she finds it just as valid for Harry to love Ron as for him to
>love Hermione, which is fine by me.
I think your daughter's tremendous. You too.
> And I just love it that she doesn't want Ron to change his name !
They could always use 'Potter-Weasley', I suppose. I've never done that
myself but some do.
Miss Anthrope
It always blows my mind a bit to realize how sheltered my world (here in
NYC) has become. I can't imagine anyone seeing the story you told as
anything but a funny anecdote.
It's disappointing to see such Dursleyish behavior on a Harry Potter ng.
If one substitutes the word "magic" for the word "gay" we get a fairly
close correlation, with all the talk of unnaturalness, etc. It's very
sad-making.
Carolyn
Georgiann
>news:<3f794fb7$0$269$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>> My seven-year-old daughter is mad about HP, and we just finished reading
>> OotP. She loved it, and comes out at the end of five stories as firm a
>> Ron/Hermione shipper as ever. She loves all Weasleys.
>>
>> I said "Did you know that some people think that Harry and Hermione will
>end
>> up together?" and she said "That's ridiculous - after everything Ron has
>> done for her ? And he bought her perfume !"
>>
>> Well, that is good enough for me.
>>
>> Though she does know that I quite like the idea of Ron/Harry - and the
>other
>> day she said, completely out of the blue "If Harry and Ron do end up
>> together, I hope that Harry changes his name to Harry Weasley, I don't want
>> Ron to stop being a Weasley." Wise words.
>>
>> Lauren
>
>
>From the mouths of babes - Lauren, I thought it unbelievably cute and
>innocent that your daughter would say that Harry should change his
>name so they could all be Weasleys.
>
>I also applaud you for having brought up your daughter with such an
>open and unprejudiced attitude. I wish more parents brought up their
>kids with such values.
>
I wanted to throw in my two cents too and say that I totally agree with the
above. It makes my heart just sing with gladness, after hearing about gay kids
being harrassed and bashed in schools, to see you passing on your loving values
to your child, and your daughter's, charming, refreshing attitude. Cheers to
you both!
LouAnn
daughter's. The daughter is in the Hermione/Ron camp, because Ron bought
her perfume.
>Though she does know that I quite like the idea of Ron/Harry - and
the other
> day she said, completely out of the blue "If Harry and Ron do end up
> together, I hope that Harry changes his name to Harry Weasley, I
don't want
> Ron to stop being a Weasley
Explaining relationships to young children 'when THEY ask' is one thing
but to offer the information is unwise and shoddy parenting.
LouAnn still very worried
Kacas
My best friend is gay - he realised when he was 12-13 (Harry's age in book
2, for the record). He did *not* have sex with anyone until he was 21...
Howcome it is implied that homosexuality necessarily means sex, when two
characters of opposite sexes can just have crushes on eachother? My friend
had a crush on a guy from his class all the way through highschool - he
never told him. Being gay at 13 is possible, but it does *not* mean that you
go out and have sex at 13!!!
Some of you people make me sick!
Karen.
Lauren
> > > innocent that your daughter would say that Harry should change his
> > > name so they could all be Weasleys.
> > >
> > > I also applaud you for having brought up your daughter with such an
> > > open and unprejudiced attitude. I wish more parents brought up their
> > > kids with such values.
> >
> > Many thanks Nick - I thought it was cute too - or I wouldn't have
> mentioned
> > it !
> >
> > Lauren (Weasley is My King too !)
>
> It always blows my mind a bit to realize how sheltered my world (here in
> NYC) has become. I can't imagine anyone seeing the story you told as
> anything but a funny anecdote.
Maybe that's it - you are in NYC and we are in London - we've seen it all !
> It's disappointing to see such Dursleyish behavior on a Harry Potter ng.
> If one substitutes the word "magic" for the word "gay" we get a fairly
> close correlation, with all the talk of unnaturalness, etc. It's very
> sad-making.
> Carolyn
Oooh, well said ! I thought we'd all accepted Hagrid's parentage after all -
and I can get my head around the mechanics of a gay relationship much easier
than that one !
Lauren
Lauren
anything
> in the books would indicate that Harry and Ron are anything but straight.
> So, while it's a fine question to ask, I think the answer has to be that
> there could be no romantic attachment. Such analysis of the characters is,
> rather obviously, beyond a seven year old, though, but I would believe
that
> any adult would be able to tell rather quickly that Ron & Harry are
> straight.
Well, any adult who knows anything about British boarding schools may beg to
differ.....
hee hee !
Lauren
LouAnn
Beautifully said!!!!!!
LouAnn
"EBM" <eme...@syix.com> wrote in message
news:10650198...@jaguar.syix.com...
> Well, it seems I've stirred the pot a bit. However, the point to my
> question is this question: What type of romantic/sexual relationships are
> being condoned, supported, and eluded to in the J. K. Rowling Harry Potter
> children books?
>
>
>
> I daresay, NOT homosexual. To even suggest the friendship between Harry
and
> Ron is more than a "best buddy and pal" thing and has "homosexual
> tendencies" is ludicrous to say the least!!! Rowling is writing these
books
> to illustrate principles (you know, good vs. evil), but also to portray
> certain values. Now we may not all agree on these values, but they are
> there whether you like it or not. You liberals with your Political
Correct
> agenda are so hell-bent to force your point of view on everyone that you
not
> only disregard these values, but incorrectly and perversely twist and
> distort them, which are so blatantly otherwise. Do you call that
> "tolerance?"
>
>
>
> I know there are many posts and fanfics in this newsgroup that discuss
> Harry/Ron, Harry/Draco ships and the like. I've even been know to discuss
> such ships like Hermione/Ginny. Nevertheless, I find these to be in
sarcasm
> and jest. I know mine are, BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING IN ROWLING'S BOOKS TO
> EVEN SUGGEST THESE HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP, NOTHING AT ALL!!!
>
>
>
> I'm sorry for all you extreme social liberals out there that have a hard
> time excepting the fact so many more people find the "traditional" and
> "conservative" values so much more important than accepting and supporting
> your so-called values. I really am.
>
>
>
> Now, I know I can't tell you how to raise your children, nor do I want to.
> However, understand this, I do have a hard time with the fact that you
would
> intentional perverse, twist, and distort the values portrayed by Rowling
in
> her books so to indoctrinate your extremely young and impressionable
> children to a far different value system.
>
>
>
> I other words, you are telling you seven-year-old to look at and view two
> teenage boys who are nothing more than "best-of-buds" with no "homosexual
> tendencies" as a pair of homosexuals. And to even go as far as to say
that
> that point of view and value system is way more common place in today's
> society than it truly is.
>
>
>
> Now, if you want to debate the "values" portrayed in the Harry Potter
books
> then bring it on - but it won't be much of a debate. ;-)
>
>
>
>
> --
> E. Meyers
>
> "Only through black and white principles can
> a man distinguish between good and evil." - Mr. A.
>
> ___
> "Lauren" <richard.the.t...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:3f794fb7$0$269$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > My seven-year-old daughter is mad about HP, and we just finished reading
> > OotP. She loved it, and comes out at the end of five stories as firm a
> > Ron/Hermione shipper as ever. She loves all Weasleys.
> >
> > I said "Did you know that some people think that Harry and Hermione will
> end
> > up together?" and she said "That's ridiculous - after everything Ron has
> > done for her ? And he bought her perfume !"
> >
> > Well, that is good enough for me.
> >
> > Though she does know that I quite like the idea of Ron/Harry - and the
> other
> > day she said, completely out of the blue "If Harry and Ron do end up
> > together, I hope that Harry changes his name to Harry Weasley, I don't
> want
> > Ron to stop being a Weasley." Wise words.
> >
> > Lauren
> >
> >
>
>
Kish
> Explaining relationships to young children 'when THEY ask' is one thing
> but to offer the information is unwise and shoddy parenting.
...in your opinion.
Personally, it makes me sad to know that there are parents who raise
their children to be bigots.
>
> LouAnn still very worried
Yes, and of course you should be. Lauren's daughter is not being raised
with the values you would want her to be.
Cinemalad5
...in your opinion.
>
> LouAnn still very worried
I agree. It's important for all you naysayers here to understand that there is
a difference between explaining relationships and explaining SEX. For a parent
to explain to their child how a relationship involves love, and a special
emotional bond between two people, regardless of who they are, I think is VERY
smart parenting. Don't jump to conclusions and presume that such discussions
involve "He has sex with...", and "They do these things in bed..."
That discussion is best left to when children mature into teenagers.
DM
> DM (dm...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> > Maybe I am reading too much into it. I just find something seriously wrong
> > with people who take an innocent story with underaged characters and suggest
> > there may be gay couplings, even though there is absolutely no hint of
> > homosexuality. To a 7- year-old, at that! You want to discuss sexual
> > orientations of Harry Potter to a teenager, fine, not to a 7 year-old.
>
> Lauren didn't do this. I find it quite strange that you
> should repeat, again and again, the implication that she is
> doing this. I quote her:
>
> > the other day she said, completely out of the blue "If Harry
> > and Ron do end up together, I hope that Harry changes his
> > name to Harry Weasley, I don't want Ron to stop being a
> > Weasley."
>
> Her *daughter* mentioned it, out of the blue. Lauren
> suggested nothing of the sort, and *I* suggest that you
> should stop saying that she did.
>
> --
> John Fisher jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk
From her post:
"Though she does know that I quite like the idea of Ron/Harry"
This sounds to me like she does discuss this particular coupling with her
daughter.
I'm not trying to attack any lifestyles with my posts. I think consensual adults
should be allowed to do as they please. What irks me is when an *adult* promotes
to a child the idea of two *underaged* characters of the same sex having a
relationship.
--
DM
--
,_,
(O,O)
( )
-"-"-
"No... not exactly..." said Hermione slowly. "More... wondering... I suppose
we're doing the right thing... I think... aren't we?"
Harry and Ron looked at each other.
"Well, that clears that up," said Ron. "It would've been really annoying if
you hadn't explained yourself properly."
HPCode(v1.1) S PS++COS++POA+++*GOF+++OOTP+++FF= QA
CH+++DD+++HB-HM+*PO+++TR+AR++CM++ HP/He-RW/Ch-CC/Mn-FW/GW/Ol-NL/Fl-SS/Um-VK/Ka
DM
Don't start on the 'bigot' stuff. There's a huge difference between teaching
tolerance and an *adult* teaching a *child* that a homosexual relationship
between two *underaged* characters is somehow 'cute' or 'normal'.
DM
Well said, EBM.
My argument is not against homosexuality or pairings done in jest, but rather
the idea that a story as innocuous and innocent as Harry Potter can somehow be
twisted to promote an 'alternative' lifestyle to a child.
Kish
> Don't start on the 'bigot' stuff.
Then don't make bigoted statements.
> There's a huge difference between teaching
> tolerance and an *adult* teaching a *child* that a homosexual relationship
> between two *underaged* characters is somehow 'cute' or 'normal'.
There is no way that statement can both 1) be valid and 2) need the
"homosexual" limiter. If a relationship is healthy between a
fifteen-year-old boy and a fifteen-year-old girl, then the same
relationship is healthy between two fifteen-year-old boys. I gather
that you don't see it that way, but that reflects badly on you.
Ben Smith
"Bojan Bugarin" <buga...@panet.co.yu> wrote in message
news:ket2jot510wg.p...@40tude.net...
> that several people in alt.fan.harry-potter looked around in alarm, and
> then continued:
>
>
> > Healthy? Not really if you act upon it, it's the easiest way to get
aids.
>
> According to some statistics, currently there are much more heterosexual
> people that have AIDS then homosexuals. So the risk of getting AIDS is
just
> as high.
That may be correct, but if you think of it interms of the ration which is
one in ten, then you see it is on a larger scale for homosexuals, i.e. it is
more likely for a homosexual to be infected.
Miss Anthrope
> >
>
> Maybe that's it - you are in NYC and we are in London - we've seen it
all !
>
going to dinner with my ex-step-father and his new boyfriend tonight."
would cause some consternation.
I'm so easily shockable. It never fails to floor me when people think any
sort of love is a bad thing, or is any different from anything else, or
why they should care in the first place.
> > It's disappointing to see such Dursleyish behavior on a Harry Potter
ng.
> > If one substitutes the word "magic" for the word "gay" we get a
fairly
> > close correlation, with all the talk of unnaturalness, etc. It's very
> > sad-making.
>
> > Carolyn
>
> Oooh, well said ! I thought we'd all accepted Hagrid's parentage after
all -
> and I can get my head around the mechanics of a gay relationship much
easier
> than that one !
>
Yes, that is definitely a relationship that brings up some very unsavory,
not to say baffling, visual images.
Out of curiosity, I ran a google search for Rowling + homosexual and
found a piece written by A.O. Scott (film critic NY Times). He has a
point. It reminds me a bit of the "coming out" scene in the last X-Men
film ("Mom, Dad...I'm...a mutant!").
"Which brings me to an intriguing point in your letter. I owe you a
silver sickle, since it seems plain to me that the homosexual themes are
already there, and treated with the sublimation and symbolism you
predict. Well, not homosexual themes per se, since whatever sexuality
there is in the books is conventionally and safely infantile. What I mean
is that being a wizard is very much like being gay: You grow up in a
hostile world governed by codes and norms that seem nonsensical to you,
and you discover at a certain age that there are people like you--what's
more, there's a whole subculture with its own codes and norms right
alongside the straight (muggle) one, yet strangely invisible to it. In
out-of-the-way spots in the middle of large cities are secret
places--bars, bookshops--that cater to this special clientele, and
suddenly, one day, you find your way to them. The reaction of many
straights (muggles) is hostility and denial, on the order of the
Dursleys. But some muggle parents, like Hermione's, love their wizard
children and support them. (Hermione reciprocates by taking a course at
Hogwarts in muggle studies, the one moment in the series that made me
laugh out loud.) Consider too that there are wizards born of muggles and
muggles born of wizards, so that having magical power (like being gay, at
least according to some schools of thought) is, while not hereditary,
clearly innate. Your use of the phrase "a place for us" was especially
suggestive (though by "us" you meant the muggles), since that's the title
of a fascinating book by D.A. Miller (published last year by Harvard)
about the role of the Broadway musical in forming, at once in secret and
out in plain view, modern gay male cultural identity. The process of
acculturation he describes (which involves playing the cast album from
Gypsy in your parents' suburban basement), is not unlike what Harry
undergoes in the early chapters of Sorcerer's Stone.
"Is this completely crazy? I won't be offended if you say yes. Will Jerry
Falwell now take out after Harry Potter, having raised the alarm about
Tinky Winky? Our dear colleague Chatterbox, that estimable muggle, thinks
he might, but for other reasons, namely that the Potter books take a
benign view of paganism, magic, witchcraft, and other things that scare
Christian fundamentalists. A few years ago they went after Barney because
he could fly, and because he taught kids about the powers of the
imagination (in their crusade they had the tacit support of parents
across America, who are fully prepared to believe that the purple
dinosaur is the instrument of Satan). There have also been outcries
raised about Dungeons and Dragons, and about the mere use of the word
"imagination" in school textbooks. So I'm sure it's only a matter of time
before school libraries start getting calls from concerned parents
complaining about our dear Harry. Which makes me like him all the more,
of course."
A.O. Scott, 1999
http://slate.msn.com/id/2000111/entry/1003488/
Cheers,
Carolyn
Efren Irizarry,II
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote in message
news:y%Feb.42924$Ms2.40590@fed1read03...
Well, Africa would be a notable exception. The AIDS population there is
overwhelmingly heterosexual (a decent number of drug users mixed in as well,
I suppose), and the overall size of the AIDS group is the largest in the
world.
Also, IIRC, in Western countries the heterosexual segment of the AIDS
population is growing more quickly than the homosexual segment. These new
heterosexual cases are usually poor folk.
Indeed, it is lack of preventive education that makes one most susceptible
to AIDS.
--
Efren Irizarry, II
Lauren
news:blfgma$aah2$1...@news3.infoave.net...
OK.
1) she knows that two men can have a loving relationship - she has a gay
uncle, not that that is any of your business.
2) she has not given it a moment's thought as to how that loving is
expressed.
3) she asked who I wanted Harry to 'end up with'.
4) I said 'Ron'.
5) She thinks that this would be lovely, as long as that makes Harry a
Weasley.
This is all very cute and age appropriate !
Lauren
Lauren
news:blfhaf$fit$1...@news.cybercity.dk...
I hope I'm not in that camp ? You did know what I meant, right ?
Lauren
Lauren
> amount of partying and pubbing and clubbing. Actually, I know people
> like that, come to think of it.
You know what - I know some gay people like that !!!
Lauren
Lauren
> >innocent that your daughter would say that Harry should change his
> >name so they could all be Weasleys.
> >
> >I also applaud you for having brought up your daughter with such an
> >open and unprejudiced attitude. I wish more parents brought up their
> >kids with such values.
> >
>
> I wanted to throw in my two cents too and say that I totally agree with
the
> above. It makes my heart just sing with gladness, after hearing about gay
kids
> being harrassed and bashed in schools, to see you passing on your loving
values
> to your child, and your daughter's, charming, refreshing attitude. Cheers
to
> you both!
>
Oh gosh - many thanks ! My brother is gay, so my daughter has *always* known
that some men have boyfriends, and it has never been an issue - we will go
into the mechanics of it at a later date !!
Lauren
Epasn
>
> I daresay, NOT homosexual. To even suggest the friendship between Harry and
> Ron is more than a "best buddy and pal" thing and has "homosexual
> tendencies" is ludicrous to say the least!!! Rowling is writing these books
> to illustrate principles (you know, good vs. evil), but also to portray
> certain values. Now we may not all agree on these values, but they are
> there whether you like it or not. You liberals with your Political Correct
> agenda are so hell-bent to force your point of view on everyone that you not
> only disregard these values, but incorrectly and perversely twist and
> distort them, which are so blatantly otherwise. Do you call that
> "tolerance?"
It is unfortunate that you've sought to make this an ideological
battle, but hey I'm a sucker for an argument.
I would think the underlying values being expressed in HP are those of
tolerance and acceptance, which run against most conservative
manifesto's. Certainly the conservative columnists that I read urge
that we regard anyone that isn't white/christian/heterosexual as being
inferior and who should be avoided and shunned at all opportunities
> I'm sorry for all you extreme social liberals out there that have a hard
> time excepting the fact so many more people find the "traditional" and
> "conservative" values so much more important than accepting and supporting
> your so-called values. I really am.
How presumptious of you!! In fact where I live the "social liberals"
have been re-elected by a landslide for a second consecutive term.
Perhaps you should avoid assuming what the majority of the world is
thinking at any given time.
>
> Now, I know I can't tell you how to raise your children, nor do I want to.
> However, understand this, I do have a hard time with the fact that you would
> intentional pervert, twist, and distort the values portrayed by Rowling in
> her books so to indoctrinate your extremely young and impressionable
> children to a far different value system.
> I other words, unlike the joking going on in the newsgroup, you are
> seriously telling
> your seven-year-old to look at and view two teenage boys who are nothing
> more
> than "best-of-buds" with no "homosexual tendencies" as a pair of
> homosexuals.
> Er, that make sense, right? Of course NOT!!! And to even go as far as to
> say
> that that point of view and value system is way more common place in today's
> society than it truly is.
>
> Now, if you want to debate the "values" portrayed in the Harry Potter books
> then bring it on - but it won't be much of a debate. ;-)
You do seem to be awfully pre-occupied with this?? I wonder what Freud
would say?
Bojan Bugarin
several people in alt.fan.harry-potter looked around in alarm, and then
continued:
>>
>>
>> Lauren has already explained that her daughter didn't think of the word
>> "sex" when they talked about "ending up together". I really don't see what
>> values are jeopardised here.
>
> The idea that "homosexuality is wrong," if you call that kind of bigotry
> a value, is jeopardized. Thankfully.
I meant to say, what values are jeopardised by Lauren. She did nothing
wrong, IMO.
--
Bojan Bugarin
" And here's something rich: thirteen bathrooms in this place... I threw up
in the coat closet"
-- Phoebe, "TOW Ross's Inappropriate Song"
Prime Services Ltd
> David and John live together and is perfectly happy about it.
Uncle David and Aunt John?
Sorry...I couldn't resist that.....I hang my head in shame.....
Kacas
misunderstood.... No, Lauren - I was talking to the "other camp" :-). I
think your story was adorable!!!
Karen.
Andy Platt
Single sex boarding schools anyway - bunch of jolly old buggers and all that
;)
Andy.
--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
Julie
"Lauren" <richard.the.t...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:3f7bc7dc$0$8768$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Lauren, I have to ask what it is that you see in Harry and Ron as a couple. They seem to me to be good buddies, but they don't cut
it as a couple for me...
Julie
Julie
"DM" <dm...@aol.com> wrote in message news:3F7B5EC6...@aol.com...
Yup this goes for me to, my very best friend in the whole wide world is gay and a cousin or two for that matter, and even they are
underage *and* of an age that I believe a lot of kids are already having sex these days I just can't get my head past the thought.
It's innocent and it is one of the reasons why I love the HP series.
Julie
Julie
"Lauren" <richard.the.t...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:3f7bc7dc$0$8768$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
The main thing I think of when I think of your daughter saying this is that about 7 most little girls I know around here think that
all boys have boys germs and that girls are much more fun to play with. I think that is the innocence of which you are speaking and
in that context I too find it cute.
If I thought for one second (and I must admit that I did for a moment or two) that you had been going into gory detail about adults
sex life, then I did have trouble. But then that was probably my own sexual biases. My best friend is gay, but when he wants to get
into details I get squimish and offer to tell him my details, at which point he usually says "oh yew..get #$%@" I point out that his
details and mine are fine to ourselves, but that is why he is gay and I am straight and neither of us bi...I suppose.
Though as a parent I appreciate that at some stage this chat is coming up with your daughter at 7 perhaps answering where babies
come from might be one thing, but answering the serious mechanics of any love making is perhaps, IMHO only a little early. By the
way at six my mum told me (because I kept asking) that babies were made by a mummy and a daddy having a "special cuddle" and that I
thought was a very special and satisfactory answer until I was about 12 and wanted to get to know more...
Okay I'm over tired and babbling - goodnight.
Julie
John Fisher
> From her post:
> "Though she does know that I quite like the idea of Ron/Harry"
>
> This sounds to me like she does discuss this particular coupling with her
> daughter.
Yes, I take your point. I was wrong in what I said.
> I'm not trying to attack any lifestyles with my posts. I think consensual adults
> should be allowed to do as they please. What irks me is when an *adult* promotes
> to a child the idea of two *underaged* characters of the same sex having a
> relationship.
But it's okay to discuss two underaged characters of
*different* sexes having a relationship?
I think it is, in both cases. Of course, with a
seven-year-old you're not talking about sex, are you? Not
in either case. So what's the problem?
I just don't get it. Unless you feel that a same-sex
relationship is particularly bad, and that simply
mentioning it to a child is in itself corrupting.
You won't be surprised to hear that I don't think that.
John Fisher
> I forget that there are places in the world where the sentence "Oh, I'm
> going to dinner with my ex-step-father and his new boyfriend tonight."
> would cause some consternation.
>
> I'm so easily shockable. It never fails to floor me when people think any
> sort of love is a bad thing, or is any different from anything else, or
> why they should care in the first place.
My feelings exactly. It's hard to describe how dismaying
I find this thread.
Why they should care is always a puzzle. Some straight
people seem to obsess endlessly about homosexuality and
homosexuals, and the fact that they have sex, and how they
do it. I mean, I'm surrounded by straight people, I'm sure
that lots of them are having sex, bless them, but it really
isn't something I'm interested in or even think about much.
On the other hand, so many of them don't seem to be
interested at all in anything else about homosexuals except
the sex.
I remember a guy, at the back end of a fairly boozy
workmates' evening:
Him: So, John, what's it like, then? Just between you and
me...
Me: What's what like?
Him: Having sex with a guy. What's that all about, then?
How does it feel?
<His eyes are glinting. He is aroused, and I find it
uncomfortable. I am wary of this sort of situation.>
Me: Er, well, it's sex, isn't it? I mean, how does it
feel to *you* when you're, er, close with someone you
love?
Him: Someone you love?
Me: Yeah, well, I'm that kind of guy, you know?
Him: *Love*? What are talking about? Gay guys don't fall
in love!
Me: <so insulted I can't speak>
It's just the sex. They think that's all it's about. It's
distasteful to them, it's irrelevant to them, but they can't
stop gnawing and bothering at it...
> [quoting:]
> "What I mean
> is that being a wizard is very much like being gay:"
A Jewish friend said that being a wizard was like being
Jewish. You have your own community, your own life and your
customs and beliefs, but embedded in a wider world which you
can't escape...
Tim Behrendsen
news:32bfa46.03100...@posting.google.com...
> tolerance and acceptance, which run against most conservative
> manifesto's. Certainly the conservative columnists that I read urge
> that we regard anyone that isn't white/christian/heterosexual as being
> inferior and who should be avoided and shunned at all opportunities
Wha...? I'm going to call you on this. I bet you can't name one mainstream conservative
columnist (other than on a KKK web site or something) that has ever advocated that.
It's nice that you recognize tolerance and acceptance as virtues, but perhaps you need to
examine your own prejudices and hatreds.
JessHC
> I'm not trying to attack any lifestyles with my posts. I think
> consensual adults should be allowed to do as they please. What
> irks me is when an *adult* promotes to a child the idea of two
> *underaged* characters of the same sex having a relationship.
Would it be acceptable if it were an underage heterosexual relationship?
JessHC
> The key word is Heterosexual not Homosexual This isn't Gay Hogwarts
> where the fans are HOPING Neville and Colin hit it off or that Harry
> finally finds love and security with his new found bum buddy Zachariah
> Smith.
So underage heterosexual relationships are okay, but not underage
homosexual relationships?
> Please explain to me WHY anyone would 'hope' someone turns gay.
Because it's more emotionally fulfilling to be in a loving homosexual
relationship than a miserable heterosexual relationship.
> I have a 7 year old grandson and if I ever suggested to him that Harry and
> Ron get married, he would look at me like I was out of my mind.
My 8yo son looks at me like that all the time.
> And besides Harry has enough problems with the Dursleys just being a wizard.
> I can see it now "Uncle Vernon--Aunt Petunia I have something to tell you
> that all really make your day!"
That's a good point, although there's no real reason to assume the
Dursleys would get in a tizzy about it. It'd be funny, though.
> Even more worried and praying for the seven year old
Very considerate.
> HPCL--LouAnn
JessHC
> "Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:jwreb.5474$Lj3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
<snip>
> > As if they'd care. (Yes, I expect the Dursleys are screamingly
> > homophobic, but they're already convinced Harry is so "abnormal" that
> > further "abnormality" couldn't have much impact.) For that matter, why
> > would Harry tell them?
> >
> The fact is that sex before marriagein heterosexual relationships is seen as
> no better than homsexual relationships. Now if the people who are saying
> that homosexual relationships are bad but had sex in a heterosexual
> relationship, well then they'd be considered hypocrites since both a deemed
> just as sinful.
Only by some people.
JessHC
> Well, it seems I've stirred the pot a bit. However, the point to my
> question is this question: What type of romantic/sexual relationships are
> being condoned, supported, and eluded to in the J. K. Rowling Harry Potter
> children books?
It's "allude," the spelling of which is eluding you. So far, the
allusions to relationships of the students at Hogwars have been
heterosexual, as far as I can tell.
> I daresay, NOT homosexual. To even suggest the friendship between Harry and
> Ron is more than a "best buddy and pal" thing and has "homosexual
> tendencies" is ludicrous to say the least!!! Rowling is writing these books
> to illustrate principles (you know, good vs. evil), but also to portray
> certain values. Now we may not all agree on these values, but they are
> there whether you like it or not. You liberals with your Political Correct
> agenda are so hell-bent to force your point of view on everyone that you not
> only disregard these values, but incorrectly and perversely twist and
> distort them, which are so blatantly otherwise. Do you call that
> "tolerance?"
The only point of view in this thread that anyone has tried to force
upon anyone else is that homosexuality shouldn't be mentioned to seven
year olds in discussions of the Harry Potter books. Nobody here has
said, "Oh, EVERYBODY should tell their kids Ron and Harry are gay."
> I know there are many posts and fanfics in this newsgroup that discuss
> Harry/Ron, Harry/Draco ships and the like. I've even been know to discuss
> such ships like Hermione/Ginny. Nevertheless, I find these to be in sarcasm
> and jest. I know mine are, BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING IN ROWLING'S BOOKS TO
> EVEN SUGGEST THESE HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP, NOTHING AT ALL!!!
Maybe you're not reading with an open mind. I've noticed a few
incidents that could have gone either way, as it were.
> I'm sorry for all you extreme social liberals out there that have a hard
> time excepting the fact so many more people find the "traditional" and
> "conservative" values so much more important than accepting and supporting
> your so-called values. I really am.
I'm sorry you think anyone is asking you to support values other than
your own, but all traditional means is that's how it's always been
done. Slavery was traditional for a long time; racism still is. Are
those conservative values yours, too? Nobody is asking you to change
your mind; shouldn't that be reciprocated?
> Now, I know I can't tell you how to raise your children, nor do I want to.
> However, understand this, I do have a hard time with the fact that you would
> intentional perverse, twist, and distort the values portrayed by Rowling in
> her books so to indoctrinate your extremely young and impressionable
> children to a far different value system.
Who has done that? Nobody here.
> I other words, you are telling you seven-year-old to look at and view two
> teenage boys who are nothing more than "best-of-buds" with no "homosexual
> tendencies" as a pair of homosexuals. And to even go as far as to say that
> that point of view and value system is way more common place in today's
> society than it truly is.
That's what's known as a strawman argument; nobody here has done that.
> Now, if you want to debate the "values" portrayed in the Harry Potter books
> then bring it on - but it won't be much of a debate.
Which values? The one that elevates pure-bloods over everyone else?
The one that shows a hero as a lazy student, who tends to make errors
in judgement because he doesn't think about what he's doing? The one
that shows how breaking the rules is the preferred method of getting
things done?
Lauren
I was fairly sure we knew we are the good guys ! ;o)
Lauren
Lauren
that about 7 most little girls I know around here think that
> all boys have boys germs and that girls are much more fun to play with. I
think that is the innocence of which you are speaking and
> in that context I too find it cute.
Well, my daughter's two best friends are boys, and they play Harry Potetr
all the time - one boy is happy to be Harry, but the other one thinks that
Ron is a drip and he usually plays Scooby-Do (don't ask), but she loves him
anyway !
> If I thought for one second (and I must admit that I did for a moment or
two) that you had been going into gory detail about adults
> sex life, then I did have trouble. But then that was probably my own
sexual biases. My best friend is gay, but when he wants to get
> into details I get squimish and offer to tell him my details, at which
point he usually says "oh yew..get #$%@" I point out that his
> details and mine are fine to ourselves, but that is why he is gay and I am
straight and neither of us bi...I suppose.
> Though as a parent I appreciate that at some stage this chat is coming up
with your daughter at 7 perhaps answering where babies
> come from might be one thing, but answering the serious mechanics of any
love making is perhaps, IMHO only a little early. By the
> way at six my mum told me (because I kept asking) that babies were made by
a mummy and a daddy having a "special cuddle" and that I
> thought was a very special and satisfactory answer until I was about 12
and wanted to get to know more...
>
> Okay I'm over tired and babbling - goodnight.
> Julie
Well, she knows where babies come from - I had her brother when she was
nearly four and this was perfect timing to explain it all. She knows that
the man makes the sperm and when it joins with the egg is grows into a
baby - for a while she must have been a little confused, because she told
someone that the man picks the sperm up with his fingers and puts it in the
vagina, so we straightened that one out !
She noticed all by herself that two flying ants were having sex in our
garden.
She hasn't noticed that there aren't any vaginas available to a gay couple,
she just knows that they love each other. I wonder at what age she will
question this ? Hmmm. Should be interesting.
Anyway - this is the longest thread I have ever started, and all I was
trying to prove is that Ron belongs with Hermione !!!!
Lauren
Lauren
couple. They seem to me to be good buddies, but they don't cut
> it as a couple for me...
> Julie
Hmmm. I think that Harry hadn't had any experience of love or affection
until he met Ron. This obviously wouldn't *turn* him gay, for heavens'
sakes, but Ron is the thing he'd miss most, after all.
Ron hasn't ever had anyone of his very own either, growing up in such a big
family.
I just think they'd do well together - they deserve each other.
But if you ask me what I think will happen, then it's obviously Ron and
Hermione. As long as Ron is happy, then I am happy.
Lauren (Weasley is my King)
Van Bagnol
> I'm not trying to attack any lifestyles with my posts. I think
> consensual adults should be allowed to do as they please. What irks
> me is when an *adult* promotes to a child the idea of two *underaged*
> characters of the same sex having a relationship.
Well, let's smite Mark Twain for writing books about Huck Finn and Tom
Sawyer.
Puh-leeze. From my childhood I remember a joke from Laugh-In: "If the
Flying Nun married the Smothers Brothers, she would be Sister Brothers."
It was funny. I did not think of a menage-a-trois, violating the
celibacy of convent Novices, Tommy and Dick's membership in the Mile
High Club, or even what Carlos Ramirez would think. Neither I nor my
parents wrote to NBC studios in beautiful downtown Burbank to complain
of the inappropriateness of what Goldie Hawn or Judy Carne said.
Ron Potter. Ron Potter-Weasley. Ron Weasley-Potter. Oh bloody hell, let
him keep his maiden name, for the sake of 7-year-old children and my
sanity.
:-/
Van
--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
...enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
...feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
...thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"
John Fisher
<richard.the.t...@dsl.pipex.com> writes
Yup - me too.
--
John Fisher jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk
Ash Wyrd
"John Fisher" <jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:RNLtxeB5iHf$Ew...@drummond.demon.co.uk...
> In article <3f7bc8ca$0$8764$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>, Lauren
> <richard.the.t...@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>
> >> Perhaps it's someone in the political centre who does an *extreme*
> >> amount of partying and pubbing and clubbing. Actually, I know people
> >> like that, come to think of it.
> >
> >You know what - I know some gay people like that !!!
>
> Yup - me too.
guilty as charged....