Harry Potter Perpetuates Rape Culture

[LowDown]

I think the bigger problem with Harry Potter is the complete lack of any government regulation of the education system. If reading those books taught me anything it's that children are safer in a barrio high school in East LA then at Hogwarts seriously how many students at Hogwarts die in the course of the series?

It also taught me that gun control is bad, seriously Voldemort wouldn't be alive to kill Harry's parents if he had tried entering houses after dark where I grew up...

Now is there any other political messages we can read into a series of fantasy novels?

The Harry Potter series was in essence about a war between good and very very evil. Casualties are inevitable, and it was Voldemort's choice to center the fight on the school. As to the question of how effective muggle firearms are against witches and wizards, I suspect that they aren't at all. Otherwise at least some witches and wizards would be packing. However, I don't think this is ever specifically brought up. It might be the English bias, which is that no one is armed with firearms since it's against the law even to possess them or use them in self defense.

All through the series being a magical person is recognized as having a lot of inherent risk. You'll recall that Luna's Lovegood's mother died just by experimenting with her magic. Dumbledore's sister died because she could not control her magic, and so on.

 

[TheGoverness]

The Harry Potter series was in essence about a war between good and very very evil.

Yes, a very, very great evil.

Delores Umbridge.

 

[LowDown]

Reading the original article (a wild idea I know), I think it makes a couple of valid points and does so in a fairly calm and casual manner. It’s not screaming out for book banning or legal action, just a recognition of the message certain plot lines could (inadvertently you’d hope) could put across.

I think it’s undeniable that the “love potions” as depicted in Harry Potter books (and many other works of fiction) are really no better than date-rape drugs and if they’re used in that manner by characters presented as heroes or victims without any challenge or question (be it by other characters, the author or readers), it could support a subconscious impression that kind of thing is acceptable. I think the fact the targets of the potions (intended and actual) in both cases are male is a relevant point too and if anything an anti-feminist one. Had the genders been reversed, I’m not convinced it would be accepted (or written) in the same unquestioning manner.

From a journalism point of view, I don’t see much difference between the National Review article moaning about the Bustle article and the Bustle article moaning about depictions of love potions. They’re both really examples of finding something minor to complain about, padding it out in to a full article and sticking an eye-catching headline on it. The main difference is the National Review’s obvious irony.

There's a certain amount of value in showing how people think. Nowhere in the Potter books is the love potion concept used in the sense of a date rape drug. That part of it comes from the imagination of the critic, from the center of her own rotten soul. The only time where use of a love potion is attempted it's to get Harry to pay attention to a girl who wanted the status attached to going out with the Chosen One. Moreover, the love potion as portrayed in the books isn't something used to knock a person out so that advantage can be taken, it's to promote "infatuation". Needless to say, no such drug exists in real life. That a SJW would twist a classic story book concept into an ugly idea to make some half baked political point tells you a lot about how they think. NR's use of this account just tells you that they think this sort of thing is silly, and it is.

 

[HonestJoe]

There's a certain amount of value in showing how people think. Nowhere in the Potter books is the love potion concept used in the sense of a date rape drug. That part of it comes from the imagination of the critic, from the center of her own rotten soul.

Actually that was my choice of terms, not from the original article and I said “no better than”. My point was one of moral equivalence, not a practical one.

The only time where use of a love potion is attempted it's to get Harry to pay attention to a girl who wanted the status attached to going out with the Chosen One.

There’s a second, arguably more significant, example quoted in the article;

Merope, the mother of Voldemort, is desperately in love with Tom Riddle, Sr., the vain, handsome, and generally cruel Muggle man who occasionally passes her cottage. Desperate to escape her circumstances and for her affection to be returned, she drugs Tom with love potions perpetually, forcing him into marriage and eventually into having a child with her. The moment she takes him off of the love potion, he is disgusted with her and flees. It is very clear that given the choice, he would never have involved himself with Merope, let alone married or reproduced with her. And yet the narrative is so wrapped up in the tragedy of the heartbroken Merope and the tragedy of an abandoned Voldemort that it neglects to make a very real and harrowing point — Tom Riddle was raped.

Moreover, the love potion as portrayed in the books isn't something used to knock a person out so that advantage can be taken, it's to promote "infatuation".

… so they can be taken advantage of (be it emotionally, sexually or both). The underlying point is that the book is presenting using magic to change or control other people against their will is being presented as at best neutral if not positive thing in this context, even where it might be presented as a bad thing (or maybe a necessary evil) in other situations.

As I said, I’m not playing it up to be a huge issue but I do think it’s still a valid point and one that is interesting to consider from a sociological and literally point of view. I think the original article overplayed it’s hand in serval places, as did the article responding to it, both of which reflect issues with a lot of internet journalism, a separate but also interesting topic.

 

[LowDown]

Yes, a very, very great evil.

Delores Umbridge.

Oh great. Now I'll have to gouge out my eyes with a grapefruit spoon.

 

[LowDown]

Actually that was my choice of terms, not from the original article and I said “no better than”. My point was one of moral equivalence, not a practical one.

There’s a second, arguably more significant, example quoted in the article;

… so they can be taken advantage of (be it emotionally, sexually or both). The underlying point is that the book is presenting using magic to change or control other people against their will is being presented as at best neutral if not positive thing in this context, even where it might be presented as a bad thing (or maybe a necessary evil) in other situations.

As I said, I’m not playing it up to be a huge issue but I do think it’s still a valid point and one that is interesting to consider from a sociological and literally point of view. I think the original article overplayed it’s hand in serval places, as did the article responding to it, both of which reflect issues with a lot of internet journalism, a separate but also interesting topic.

Your reasoning is really a stretch. So, if I talk someone into sleeping with me by using flattery and charm, is it rape? By your lights it would be, because undue influence. I'm changing them with sweet words, the most inexhaustible source of magic, as Dumbledore said, taking them places they'd otherwise not go. You cheapen the word "rape" with such nonsense.

 

[HonestJoe]

Your reasoning is really a stretch. So, if I talk someone into sleeping with me by using flattery and charm, is it rape? By your lights it would be, because undue influence. I'm changing them with sweet words, the most inexhaustible source of magic, as Dumbledore said, taking them places they'd otherwise not go. You cheapen the word "rape" with such nonsense.

Flattery and charm isn’t physically altering their mental state to make them do something they wouldn’t choose to do if they were aware of it.

As you rightly pointed out earlier, there is no real substance capable of creating the effect of the fictional “love potions” but imagine if there was. Some drug which would make an individual fall uncontrollably in love/lust with someone else, even if in reality they couldn’t stand that person. Are you suggesting that secretly spiking someone’s drink with that drug and using the effect to have sex or establish a relationship with them would be perfectly acceptable – no different to convincing them with “flattery and charm”?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

It also perpetuates theft and vandalism and unlawful imprisonment and torture and murder and bullying and a whole host of other things that are bad in real life. But it isn't real life. It's fantasy.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The Harry Potter series was in essence about a war between good and very very evil. Casualties are inevitable, and it was Voldemort's choice to center the fight on the school. As to the question of how effective muggle firearms are against witches and wizards, I suspect that they aren't at all. Otherwise at least some witches and wizards would be packing. However, I don't think this is ever specifically brought up. It might be the English bias, which is that no one is armed with firearms since it's against the law even to possess them or use them in self defense.

All through the series being a magical person is recognized as having a lot of inherent risk. You'll recall that Luna's Lovegood's mother died just by experimenting with her magic. Dumbledore's sister died because she could not control her magic, and so on.

Not arguing, simply expressing disdain for radical interpretations of novels by non authors.

They actually referenced guns exactly once that I remember, and described them as a "demented sort of wand muggles use the kill each other"

I also will assert Harry potter encourages stereotyping and intolerance by the repeated use of slurs to describe people not like them.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Not arguing, simply expressing disdain for radical interpretations of novels by non authors.

They actually referenced guns exactly once that I remember, and described them as a "demented sort of wand muggles use the kill each other"

I also will assert Harry potter encourages stereotyping and intolerance by the repeated use of slurs to describe people not like them.

I have noted that Progressive-Fascists are really miserable, downer, big bummer, no fun, no imagination, no hope (outside of Gigantic Government!), depressing, wet blanket, sneer at anything entertaining that isn't Leftie Propaganda, glass always half-empty of piss and a Crucifix kinda people....

-

 

[Mason66]

Reading the original article (a wild idea I know), I think it makes a couple of valid points and does so in a fairly calm and casual manner. It’s not screaming out for book banning or legal action, just a recognition of the message certain plot lines could (inadvertently you’d hope) could put across.

I think it’s undeniable that the “love potions” as depicted in Harry Potter books (and many other works of fiction) are really no better than date-rape drugs and if they’re used in that manner by characters presented as heroes or victims without any challenge or question (be it by other characters, the author or readers), it could support a subconscious impression that kind of thing is acceptable. I think the fact the targets of the potions (intended and actual) in both cases are male is a relevant point too and if anything an anti-feminist one. Had the genders been reversed, I’m not convinced it would be accepted (or written) in the same unquestioning manner.

From a journalism point of view, I don’t see much difference between the National Review article moaning about the Bustle article and the Bustle article moaning about depictions of love potions. They’re both really examples of finding something minor to complain about, padding it out in to a full article and sticking an eye-catching headline on it. The main difference is the National Review’s obvious irony.

Did the love potions in Harry Potter lead to sex?

Did anything in Harry Potter lead to sex?

Sex was the one thing glaringly missing from the story.

 

[Deuce]

Yes, of course.

I think you're just really, really upset that someone dared insult the Harry Potter franchise.

 

[Mr Person]

Or at least so one writer of Feminist Internet says. A couple of story lines use Love Potions, which is "glaringly problematic", she huffs.

But then everything is problematic.

Well, I'm not going to read the link because it sounds like this person is a moron. I'm also not going to get upset about what the moron wrote because it's inevitable that some morons will find their way to the internet.

Keep an eye out for a moron named "Amanda Marcotte".

 

[HonestJoe]

Did the love potions in Harry Potter lead to sex?

Did anything in Harry Potter lead to sex?

Sex was the one thing glaringly missing from the story.

Unless wizards have a magical way of making babies, apparently so;

Merope, the mother of Voldemort, is desperately in love with Tom Riddle, Sr., the vain, handsome, and generally cruel Muggle man who occasionally passes her cottage. Desperate to escape her circumstances and for her affection to be returned, she drugs Tom with love potions perpetually, forcing him into marriage and eventually into having a child with her.

 

[Cephus]

Unless wizards have a magical way of making babies, apparently so;

So apparently, a woman raped a man in Harry Potter and feminists are bitching about rape culture?

 

[WCH]

Or at least so one writer of Feminist Internet says. A couple of story lines use Love Potions, which is "glaringly problematic", she huffs.

But then everything is problematic.

And trees are racist.

 

[Kurmugeon]

And trees are racist.

Yeah, I heard about those evil racist trees that are just waiting to reach out and Lynch!

America is coming unglued.

-

 

[Deuce]

Yeah, I heard about those evil racist trees that are just waiting to reach out and Lynch!

America is coming unglued.

-

No it isn't. One random ass blogger saying something dumb does not a movement make. There have always been whiny college students. You just hear about them more now thanks to the information age.

 

[Kurmugeon]

No it isn't. One random ass blogger saying something dumb does not a movement make. There have always been whiny college students. You just hear about them more now thanks to the information age.

Random Blogger?

College Student?

No....

Sultan Knish: Our Racist Trees

Try, Mickey Fearn, the National Park Service Deputy Director for Communications and Community Assistance!

At least the initial direct quote comes from him.

But behind that, is a whole list of extreme radical lefties with wacko ideas about race... all working for National Park Service...

... ahhh, the Obama Era!

As loonie as it gets!

-

 

[Roadvirus]

Yeah, I heard about those evil racist trees that are just waiting to reach out and Lynch!

America is coming unglued.

-

I remember that twaddle. Talk about going above and beyond insane.

 

[Kurmugeon]

I remember that twaddle. Talk about going above and beyond insane.

The good news is, even among clueless young college students, the "Twaddle", be it the OP story, or the Racist (XYZ flavor of the day), is getting old, trite, and hollow.

-

 

[Roadvirus]

The good news is, even among clueless young college students, the "Twaddle", be it the OP story, or the Racist (XYZ flavor of the day), is getting old, trite, and hollow.

-

Yep. People are getting tired of listening to the mental midgets who moan about every single little thing (and when there's nothing around, make up stuff to complain about)

I think the whole TrigglyPuff affair was the beginning of the end for the SJW movement. That small female version of the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man became the mascot for the SJWs, representing everything that was wrong with them: loud, ugly and obnoxious to the core.

 

[Cephus]

Yep. People are getting tired of listening to the mental midgets who moan about every single little thing (and when there's nothing around, make up stuff to complain about)

I think the whole TrigglyPuff affair was the beginning of the end for the SJW movement. That small female version of the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man became the mascot for the SJWs, representing everything that was wrong with them: loud, ugly and obnoxious to the core.

But while all of that is true, it won't stop them one bit. They've been obnoxious since the beginning and the more that you point out to them that they're assholes, the more fanatical they get. I don't think you've seen the beginning of the end by any means. They'll only get worse from here.

 

[ludin]

Or at least so one writer of Feminist Internet says. A couple of story lines use Love Potions, which is "glaringly problematic", she huffs.

But then everything is problematic.

yet the only person to have a love potion used on him if I remember was Ron. so it was a guy.
hmmmm interesting.

 

[Kurmugeon]

But while all of that is true, it won't stop them one bit. They've been obnoxious since the beginning and the more that you point out to them that they're assholes, the more fanatical they get. I don't think you've seen the beginning of the end by any means. They'll only get worse from here.

But now that the common people realize they're just Trolls, they'll lose political power and authority, and get kicked from elected office, which will in turn lead to them losing appointed office...

Toothless Trolls are just noisy.

-