[ SECRET POST #2296 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2296 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 056 secrets from Secret Submission Post #328.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I know for a lot of women who don't want kids, there's this impression that others have towards them that it's "okay" to make that choice only if they work/volunteer in a field that has a lot of contact with kids (i.e., a teacher), so they sort of have children by proxy, even if she has none herself. Otherwise, if she doesn't even want to be around/work with kids, then obviously she's just "broken." In other words, women need to make themselves a "mother" in some other capacity or else they're weird/crazy. It's shitty thinking but a lot of people fall into it without realizing, and I wouldn't be surprised if JKR fell into it subconsciously, as well. (She does seem to have some problematic ideas, like the idea that Voldemort couldn't feel love because he was conceived under the effects of a Love Potion rather than actual love - essentially claiming that children conceived of rape or accidents are fundamentally broken. Yikes.)

[kaijinscendre]

But being conceived under a Love Potion is different from rape. I want to point out both are non consensual and very much bad.

But one has some kind of magic-y component to it. Who is to say what kind of effect that magic would have on a fetus? It could very well mess with the hormones or brain chemicals needed to produce love. If the Love Potion somehow mimics love in the brain, perhaps a fetus born under a Love Potion would not have a brain/body that produces this naturally. Thus creating a child that cannot love.

[(Anonymous)]

Except I don't think the books ever mention any effects like that??? Either way it could be considered a form of rape, (you're basically drugging someone), and it sends a problematic message that someone conceived out of not-100%-consensual sex can't ever know or really feel love. It's kind of fucked up.

[kaijinscendre]

Well yes. It never mentions it because it is not necessary to the story. But neither is knowing the family life/relationships of the professors. But speculating seems to be okay for that.

[fuchsiascreams]

lol, what? The fact that he was conceived because his mother drugged his father with a Love Potion does not imply anything. You could just as easily say that J. K. Rowling was implying that orphans grow up to be evil since they don't experience the love of a mother, since she also wrote about that in the book. It happening =/= drawing implications.

[(Anonymous)]

It wasn't in the book, but J.K Rowling actually said it in an interview, unfortunately.


"Ravleen: How much does the fact that voldemort was conceived under a love potion have to do with his nonability to understand love is it more symbolic

J.K. Rowling: It was a symbolic way of showing that he came from a loveless union – but of course, everything would have changed if Merope had survived and raised him herself and loved him. The enchantment under which Tom Riddle fathered Voldemort is important because it shows coercion, and there can’t be many more prejudicial ways to enter the world than as the result of such a union."

I imagine she didn't really mean it as badly as it could be taken, but the implication is there.

[fuchsiascreams]

I mean, the story takes place in a school.. most of the adults in the story work at the school, unless they're directly related to the characters who go there. I don't think it's a "WOMAN WHO DON'T WANT KIDS MUST FULFILL THEIR MATERNAL INSTINCTS BY HAVING A CAREER INVOLVING CHILDREN" thing. And incidentally, I'm not sure where you get the idea that J. K. Rowling was implying that Voldemort was screwed up because of the way he was conceived. I just finished rereading the series yesterday, and it was pretty obvious from the way she gave the background on his mother's family that the problems came from there, not because ~he was conceived in an impure way!!~.