Is there room for sexuality in children´s books?

[anitram]

Originally posted by AEON

I think the uneasiness comes from the fact Dumbledore was a mentor while Harry was coming of age - a central theme in the books - and not just babysitting him at the nursery.

But then I honestly have to ask again - what is it about your thought processes that takes you down this road whereas most of the rest of us just don't at all arrive at that conclusion, nor does it occur to us to wonder or feel uneasy? Could you mentor a daughter of mine in a relatively private setting, for years, without wanting her sexually or having something untoward happen? Because I truly have NO such tendencies towards young boys whatsoever, there is no sexual attraction there and it doesn't even occur to me that they're sexual beings. So I don't walk around assuming that mentor-type relationships immediately have something underlying them that's questionable.

[melon]

Yeesh...sounds like a lot of straight guys here are downright perverts. Remind me to keep my future children away from all of them!

[melon]

Originally posted by maycocksean
Eh. . .I don't know about that. Speaking as an aspiring novelist myself, there's a lot that goes into creating your characters that never makes it on to the page.

Umberto Eco wrote a wonderful essay on this subject, related to the process of writing "The Name of the Rose." It's published with the latest paperback edition of the novel.

Eco's level of backstory detail was downright astounding!

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally posted by anitram


But then I honestly have to ask again - what is it about your thought processes that takes you down this road whereas most of the rest of us just don't at all arrive at that conclusion, nor does it occur to us to wonder or feel uneasy? Could you mentor a daughter of mine in a relatively private setting, for years, without wanting her sexually or having something untoward happen? Because I truly have NO such tendencies towards young boys whatsoever, there is no sexual attraction there and it doesn't even occur to me that they're sexual beings. So I don't walk around assuming that mentor-type relationships immediately have something underlying them that's questionable.

Apparently humankind functions in a constant state of uncontrollable sexual feelings, thoughts, and actions. Or is it only humankind who happen to be gay that functions in that way?

[melon]

Originally posted by anitram
Could you mentor a daughter of mine in a relatively private setting, for years, without wanting her sexually or having something untoward happen? Because I truly have NO such tendencies towards young boys whatsoever, there is no sexual attraction there and it doesn't even occur to me that they're sexual beings.

Really. I feel the same way, and have ZERO attraction to children. I'm at an age where even people in their early 20s seem like "children" to me too...heh.

I'd like to think that most people have no latent sexual attraction to the children that they're around...but I get the sense like a lot of the heterosexual men around here are constantly holding themselves back from wanting to have sex with them. If that's the case, then you guys have the problem, and stop scapegoating homosexuals for your own perversions!

[MrsSpringsteen]

This was in an article I read, granted those are people in their 20's and 30's and 50's but I just don't think that the reaction of teens and younger would be all that different. What makes it different perhaps is what adults put onto it-kids don't have those kinds of prejudices. What is exactly "wrong" with mothering and nurturing? I never read any of the books but from what I gather they are great for kids. Beloved and popular and nurturing has nothing to do with orientation-again it's about the kind of person someone is.

It totally came out of left field. I never would have thought of it, but it makes sense after the fact. ... I really want to read the book again," the New York Daily News quoted Nikole Kniesel, 28, an executive assistant from Queens, as saying.

Another thing that became clear was that the character remained as beloved and popular as ever.

Terry Hannon, a 55-year-old truck driver, said: "It's a fictional character. People are reading too much into it. It's probably going to upset the Christian right, but I'd still let my kids read it."

Muriel Rosa, 36, a hospital worker from Brooklyn added: "I think it's awesome he's gay. I think he has a big heart and is mothering and nurturing."

Does anyone here honestly think they never had a teacher or administrator who was gay? I'm sure I did, and NONE of them ever did anything inappropriate that I knew of. The problems I had or was aware of were with straight male teachers.

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON

I think the uneasiness comes from the fact Dumbledore was a mentor while Harry was coming of age - a central theme in the books - and not just babysitting him at the nursery.

But why, is it that his gayness may rub off on Harry? Hmmm, wizards do dress quite extravagantly...

Or is it this on going theme in your threads about men not being able to keep it in their pants?

Originally posted by AEON

I also wonder how much Rowling is pandering. If it wasn't such a big deal for her - then why didn't she just say in the story?

Not much of a reader or writer are you?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by melon
Yeesh...sounds like a lot of straight guys here are downright perverts. Remind me to keep my future children away from all of them!

and given the fact that most molestation happens at the hands of a heterosexual male, combined with all these stories of hot straight women sleeping with 13 year old boys, it seems that the only conclusion that i can draw is that children must only be raised by loving lesbians.

[BrownEyedBoy]

Originally posted by Irvine511




and given the fact that most molestation happens at the hands of a heterosexual male, combined with all these stories of hot straight women sleeping with 13 year old boys, it seems that the only conclusion that i can draw is that children must only be raised by loving lesbians.

...or that heterosexual people are the majority and so there are more probabilities of there being a heterosexual sex offender?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy




...or that heterosexual people are the majority and so there are more probabilities of there being a heterosexual sex offender?

is that what you were thinking at the beginning of this thread?

[BrownEyedBoy]

Originally posted by Irvine511




is that what you were thinking at the beginning of this thread?

No, it was more along the lines of this new word that I´ve discovered (someone posted it above): pandering. I really feel that there´s no reason at all to say that Dumbledore´s gay besides furthering the homosexual agenda and pushing the notion that homosexuality is fine. Which it is. I have many gay friends. I just have a problem with mixing children´s books with political views, especially on sexuality. And it does upset me when somoene like Rowling takes a cheap shot just because she can. There´s no reason for Dumbledore to be gay in the books besides the fact that she wants to "pander".

[unico]

Again, I want to know why you don't complain about the blatant expressions of heterosexual sexuality in the series. I want to stress again unrequited love affair . NOTHING was ever acted on, thus, who is being sexualized by simply stating Dumbledore's orientation?

And I think you are missing something which is very key here: she was asked a specific question regarding a character. She didn't write anything about it in the book because it doesn't really give much to the storyline itself. Would you have rather she not answered the question at all?

HER characters are designed and developed throughout the story. She even said she knew early on that Dumbledore was gay. She left it out of the story knowing full well herself.

I feel like you and others are just trying to create a controversy when there really isn't even one to speak of.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy


No, it was more along the lines of this new word that I´ve discovered (someone posted it above): pandering. I really feel that there´s no reason at all to say that Dumbledore´s gay besides furthering the homosexual agenda and pushing the notion that homosexuality is fine. Which it is. I have many gay friends. I just have a problem with mixing children´s books with political views, especially on sexuality. And it does upset me when somoene like Rowling takes a cheap shot just because she can. There´s no reason for Dumbledore to be gay in the books besides the fact that she wants to "pander".

writers conduct elaborate backstories for their characters. it seems that being gay was part of Dumbledore's. i don't think this has a think to do with pandering, but you realize the trap we're falling into -- we're saying, "I think that Rowling was thinking ..."

it makes perfect sense ot me that an older, unmarried professor at a school who's active and interested in the lives of his students as an expression of his paternal instincts (again, i'm surmising, i haven't read the books or seen the movies) would be gay.

there are lots and lots of teachers like this. and they're wonderful.

[BVS]

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy


No, it was more along the lines of this new word that I´ve discovered (someone posted it above): pandering. I really feel that there´s no reason at all to say that Dumbledore´s gay besides furthering the homosexual agenda and pushing the notion that homosexuality is fine. Which it is. I have many gay friends. I just have a problem with mixing children´s books with political views, especially on sexuality. And it does upset me when somoene like Rowling takes a cheap shot just because she can. There´s no reason for Dumbledore to be gay in the books besides the fact that she wants to "pander".

This ISN'T A F##KING political view!!! There is no gay agenda, gay people exist amongst us pull your head out of your hate and deal with it.

This is just as bad as when children's book didn't include people of other races or other religions, or the "indians" were the evil bad guys and white dudes were the heros...

Seriously, I can't stand it.

[Diemen]

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy


No, it was more along the lines of this new word that I´ve discovered (someone posted it above): pandering. I really feel that there´s no reason at all to say that Dumbledore´s gay besides furthering the homosexual agenda and pushing the notion that homosexuality is fine. Which it is. I have many gay friends. I just have a problem with mixing children´s books with political views, especially on sexuality. And it does upset me when somoene like Rowling takes a cheap shot just because she can. There´s no reason for Dumbledore to be gay in the books besides the fact that she wants to "pander".

Of all the ignorant crap that's been said in this thread, "furthering the homosexual agenda" takes the cake.

I really don't think I can say much more without crossing the line.

Unbelievable.

[BVS]

I'm not even sure why this is being brought up, it's only the "christian" conservatives that have a problem with this, and they aren't suppose to be reading the books anyways, it's furthering the black magic agenda.

[MrsSpringsteen]

My impression of JK Rowling is that she is not about pandering. If it's "pandering" to have a gay character, well it's certainly the same to have a straight one. There are gay people, there are straight people, there are African Americans-is it pandering to have them too? You'd think she had two men having hot and wild sex in the books rather than just having a character be gay because gay people exist. This is starting to sound like the King And King book in Massachusetts thing.. That guy must be outraged by Harry Potter now too and demanding that the book be taken out of schools.

[BoMac]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
There is no gay agenda, gay people exist amongst us pull your head out of your hate and deal with it.

Apparently, not in Iran.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Carry on.

[Vincent Vega]

A German author, I think it was Günther Grass, once explained that throughout the process of writing the book the characters become more or less independent beings that act virtually on their own. At some point the author "declines" to develop the story and the characters are taking this part.
It's a process I think you can't really understand full well except you yourself are an author that deelops stories this way, but I'm sure by writing those stories there is a flow of creativity that's subconscious and flows into the characters. So these characters become like actual people with everything people have, including a sexuality.

And now Rowling got asked and answered honestly.

But really, what is the problem about one character turning out to be gay? There is no sex scene involved, no love affair described in all detail imaginable and she isn't pandering his sexuality in the book at all. She just mentioned characteristic of a human being that is here to be found in a fictional one, not more.
And again, children will take this information (if at all, many probably haven't heard this news) and that's it.

And why should we spoil children from reality? It just shows our bias towards gay people, not the children's.

Better a gay agenda than this pityful straight agenda I would say. And that would mean that there is an actual agenda, which is just nonsense.

[Greenlight]

Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy


. I just have a problem with mixing children´s books with political views, especially on sexuality. And it does upset me when somoene like Rowling takes a cheap shot just because she can. There´s no reason for Dumbledore to be gay in the books besides the fact that she wants to "pander".

The thing is the Harry Potter books deal with a number of adult themes anyway- bigotry, racism, politics, torture and so on. Whilst they're categorised as children's books they're aimed at the older child/teenager (let's face it children under around 8/9 probably wouldn't understand them anyway). My son is 11, has read all the HP books, knows the facts of life but hasn't hit puberty yet. His reaction when he heard that Dumbledore was gay was "oh was he" and carried on playing. I think most kids around this age just see the HP books as brilliant adventure stories and don't fully appreciate/understand the wider issues so the books work well on two levels.
I don't see what's wrong though with having a gay character in a children's book like this. Why should all the characters be heterosexual? There's no reason actually for Dumbledore not to gay. Far from Rowling "pandering" the "homosexual agenda" I think she more likely was put off from having a more openly gay character as she didn't want to upset the lucrative American market.