Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Entertainment Weekly)   Jude Law breaks silence on that whole "Dumbledore isn't gay enough" controversy   ( ew.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Dumbledore, Harry Potter, Beasts] film., Albus Dumbledore, previous Dumbledore actors, Dumbledore's sexuality, Young Albus, J.K. Rowling  
•       •       •

1850 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 17 Jul 2018 at 1:20 PM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-07-17 12:26:33 PM  
The what now?

He's British, isn't that enough?
 
2018-07-17 12:31:17 PM  
Is Jude Law gay enough to play young Dumbledore?  Maybe Scarlett Johansson could play him.
 
2018-07-17 01:26:25 PM  
As gay as wrassling?

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-07-17 01:27:44 PM  
It's just a movie, why be so heterophobic?
 
2018-07-17 01:29:28 PM  
What do they expect him to be some kind of flaming queen? I remember when they first said that Dumbledore was gay I pretty much said "He is? ok, cool."
 
2018-07-17 01:31:10 PM  
What is the current standard for the proper amount of gay?
 
2018-07-17 01:31:11 PM  
Jesus, who farking cares? We don't need to go out of our way to make a character gay. If he has a significant other, fine, if he doesn't, fine also. Who cares "how" gay he is or isn't? I really don;'t get why it mattered that he was gay in the first place. There isn't a point in any of the books where you wonder what his romantic life was about, really. I don't really know why Rowling felt the need to reveal his sexuality anyway.
 
2018-07-17 01:34:19 PM  
Is this what people want Dumbledore to be?

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-07-17 01:34:34 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: What is the current standard for the proper amount of gay?


There will never be the "proper" amount of gay. Some people will insist that it isn't enough, and others will insist that any character is "too" gay. The rest of us just want those people to STFU.
 
2018-07-17 01:38:18 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: What is the current standard for the proper amount of gay?


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-07-17 01:54:27 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: What is the current standard for the proper amount of gay?


Luke Skywalker levels

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-07-17 02:07:47 PM  

Mikey1969: Jesus, who farking cares? We don't need to go out of our way to make a character gay. If he has a significant other, fine, if he doesn't, fine also. Who cares "how" gay he is or isn't? I really don;'t get why it mattered that he was gay in the first place. There isn't a point in any of the books where you wonder what his romantic life was about, really. I don't really know why Rowling felt the need to reveal his sexuality anyway.


There's some references in the books that imply that the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald may have been romantic. They're very subtle and open to interpretation, but that would affect some of the present-day attitudes in the books. So I can see why Rowling mentioned it, and it made sense in that context.

That said, I really don't think it's necessary to make Dumbledore mince around like Snagglepuss and summon bags of penises constantly.
 
2018-07-17 02:08:56 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


/AhwegottawriteallthatdowncauseI'mnotg​onnarememberanyofitbutherewego.
 
2018-07-17 02:17:42 PM  

Mikey1969: Jesus, who farking cares? We don't need to go out of our way to make a character gay. If he has a significant other, fine, if he doesn't, fine also. Who cares "how" gay he is or isn't? I really don;'t get why it mattered that he was gay in the first place. There isn't a point in any of the books where you wonder what his romantic life was about, really. I don't really know why Rowling felt the need to reveal his sexuality anyway.


We're not going out of our way to make him gay, he's a gay character. On top of that, the primary antagonist in these movies is someone Dumbledore was romantically involved with. The "gayness" of the character isn't specifically relevant, but the nature of his relationship with the villain certainly is. That's why fans are asking about it. They want to make sure the movies aren't going to be glossing over a character's homosexuality in a bid for more mass appeal.
 
2018-07-17 02:22:40 PM  

meera's frog spear: HotWingConspiracy: What is the current standard for the proper amount of gay?

Luke Skywalker levels

[img.fark.net image 450x600]


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-07-17 02:24:39 PM  

shut_it_down: Mikey1969: Jesus, who farking cares? We don't need to go out of our way to make a character gay. If he has a significant other, fine, if he doesn't, fine also. Who cares "how" gay he is or isn't? I really don;'t get why it mattered that he was gay in the first place. There isn't a point in any of the books where you wonder what his romantic life was about, really. I don't really know why Rowling felt the need to reveal his sexuality anyway.

We're not going out of our way to make him gay, he's a gay character. On top of that, the primary antagonist in these movies is someone Dumbledore was romantically involved with. The "gayness" of the character isn't specifically relevant, but the nature of his relationship with the villain certainly is. That's why fans are asking about it. They want to make sure the movies aren't going to be glossing over a character's homosexuality in a bid for more mass appeal.


You obviously haven't been paying attention then. People don't "gloss over" gayness now, they go WAY out of their way to make sure you understand that the character is gay and everyone attached to the film is woke AF.

Hence the debate that Jude Law might not be making Dumbledore "gay enough".
 
2018-07-17 02:25:36 PM  
Given the sole thing known about Dumbledore being gay was that he was in love with Grindelwald... and this is a film about Dumbledore and Grindelwald... it seems odd that it won't come up.

It's not about Dumbledore getting sucked off by a marine on screen, it's about not mentioning it seems narratively... odd.
 
Boe
2018-07-17 02:29:35 PM  
Jude Law was "gay enough" to play Stephen Fry's boy toy in "Wilde" so I think he's good to go
 
2018-07-17 02:33:48 PM  

Mikey1969: Jesus, who farking cares? We don't need to go out of our way to make a character gay. If he has a significant other, fine, if he doesn't, fine also. Who cares "how" gay he is or isn't? I really don;'t get why it mattered that he was gay in the first place. There isn't a point in any of the books where you wonder what his romantic life was about, really. I don't really know why Rowling felt the need to reveal his sexuality anyway.


Because of this reaction, among many others.  Including homophobic assholes, people who insist on making sure there firm definitions on who is gay or bi or straight, and yours that I quoted above.

The fact that it gets any reaction that's different than finding out Ron and Hermione got together or that in the next book Harry got his first crush is a reason to care.  It's still an issue for huge portions of the western world.  Even for many of those ok with homosexual marriage (or like we should be calling it once people get over themselves, marriage), there's a need to dig into it and make it sideshow.  Most people don't just shrug and slide past it.  And of course, the big issue: there are still governments and large portions of the voting population of most western countries trying to marginalize, ignore, degrade, or limit freedoms based on sexuality.

Like we learned with gender and ethnic discrimination over the last century, you don't make anything better by ignoring it or just acting like it's not an issue.  It's going to get pointed out.  And as long as you react - pro, con, or otherwise - it's going to be a thing.

Want people to stop calling it out?  Do your part and stop the conversation to give a soliloquy over why "no one cares".  Then you won't have to see responses like mine.  We would have already moved the conversation on, like if it was mentioned he had wavy hair or wore size 10 shoes.
 
2018-07-17 02:35:04 PM  

Khellendros: Do your part and stop the conversation to give a soliloquy over why "no one cares".


Edit - "don't stop the conversation"
 
2018-07-17 02:36:54 PM  
It's all about this angle here from my POV.

"When you hire [famed costume designer] Colleen Atwood, you know you're in the hands of someone rather great. "

For now, but in the future the correct way to design costumes is that everyone just wears a plain t-shirt that has what they are printed on it for maximum correct representation.
A character's story and personal sense of identity may be entirely unrelated to their sexuality or sense of gender identity. But that's not an excuse for lacking the correct amount of representation dam it.

So the way to achieve this is that no matter what time period or sci-fi or fantasy setting we place a story in. Every character will wear a plain T that has a printed statement of what they represent on it.

Dumbledore would not wear robes, and not need to be stereo type acting the "gay male," he just has the proper t-shirt that say "Homosexual Male" on it. Now every story we tell, no matter what the story is actually about, we just pass out all the representation T's to all the character's, and now we're representing. Right?
 
2018-07-17 02:43:04 PM  

Khellendros: It's still an issue for huge portions of the western world.  Even for many of those ok with homosexual marriage (or like we should be calling it once people get over themselves, marriage), there's a need to dig into it and make it sideshow.  Most people don't just shrug and slide past it.  And of course, the big issue: there are still governments and large portions of the voting population of most western countries trying to marginalize, ignore, degrade, or limit freedoms based on sexuality.


img.fark.netView Full Size
Yes, it's the "western world" that treats homosexuals terribly. Ignore the fact that virtually all the blue is in Western Europe and its former colonies.
 
2018-07-17 02:43:28 PM  

Khellendros: Mikey1969: Jesus, who farking cares? We don't need to go out of our way to make a character gay. If he has a significant other, fine, if he doesn't, fine also. Who cares "how" gay he is or isn't? I really don;'t get why it mattered that he was gay in the first place. There isn't a point in any of the books where you wonder what his romantic life was about, really. I don't really know why Rowling felt the need to reveal his sexuality anyway.

Because of this reaction, among many others.  Including homophobic assholes, people who insist on making sure there firm definitions on who is gay or bi or straight, and yours that I quoted above.

The fact that it gets any reaction that's different than finding out Ron and Hermione got together or that in the next book Harry got his first crush is a reason to care.  It's still an issue for huge portions of the western world.  Even for many of those ok with homosexual marriage (or like we should be calling it once people get over themselves, marriage), there's a need to dig into it and make it sideshow.  Most people don't just shrug and slide past it.  And of course, the big issue: there are still governments and large portions of the voting population of most western countries trying to marginalize, ignore, degrade, or limit freedoms based on sexuality.

Like we learned with gender and ethnic discrimination over the last century, you don't make anything better by ignoring it or just acting like it's not an issue.  It's going to get pointed out.  And as long as you react - pro, con, or otherwise - it's going to be a thing.

Want people to stop calling it out?  Do your part and stop the conversation to give a soliloquy over why "no one cares".  Then you won't have to see responses like mine.  We would have already moved the conversation on, like if it was mentioned he had wavy hair or wore size 10 shoes.


Long and short: I don't care if Dumbledore is gay. I DO care that people want to make it an issue enough to cry on the interwebs that someone isn't making him "gay enough". Seems to me like a stereotype exists and those who claim to support the culture are the ones guilty of demanding that the stereotype be enforced.

Weird how that works. I personally don't think that there's a "gay enough" threshold. Maybe that's because I don't think that gay people are supposed to have a special way to act?
 
2018-07-17 02:43:33 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: What is the current standard for the proper amount of gay?


Elton John.
 
2018-07-17 02:45:22 PM  

shut_it_down: We're not going out of our way to make him gay, he's a gay character. On top of that, the primary antagonist in these movies is someone Dumbledore was romantically involved with. The "gayness" of the character isn't specifically relevant, but the nature of his relationship with the villain certainly is. That's why fans are asking about it. They want to make sure the movies aren't going to be glossing over a character's homosexuality in a bid for more mass appeal.


They make want to be careful about overplaying the homosexuality of their big bad, the Nazi-surrogate Grindelwald.

\Not that prominent Nazis weren't gay
 
2018-07-17 02:47:02 PM  

Mikey1969: I don't really know why Rowling felt the need to reveal his sexuality anyway.


One possible reason is that gay kids often have to deal with a lot of crap growing up, including bullying, anxiety about whether they are "normal", more bullying, worrying about how their parents will handle it, etc., etc. And they really don't have a lot of role models, real or fictional, to reassure them that they're OK.

So Rowling's announcement that "hey, this beloved character was gay, too, and you never even knew it" may well have done a lot of good both for gay kids themselves, and in prompting other kids to think twice about how they treat the gay kids.

I claim no special insight into Rowling's thinking. But if she felt she could do some good with one sentence that doesn't in any way detract from the books -- as you yourself noted, there's nothing in there that is affected one way or the other -- it seems like something she would do.
 
2018-07-17 03:05:27 PM  
There's nothing in the books that explicitly identifies Dumbledore as gay.  I'm pretty certain that Dumbledore wasn't envisioned that way - not that I think JK created him straight and changed it, but rather his sexual orientation is entirely irrelevant to the story (because the story is about children at the school, and it would be unusual for the sexual orientation of the 120+ years old headmaster to be relevant) and as such when JK decided that he was gay there was nothing in the books to contradict that.

Which is really as it should be - a character's orientation is only relevant in situations it's directly relevant to - on a date, being seduced by a foreign agent, etc.  If you're writing a story and ask "How would a gay person react to X" and not "How would Tony, the character I've created, react to X" then you're not writing a story or creating characters, you're just playing with stereotypes.

\I refer to the author as JK not to be dismissive but because I have trouble remembering how to spell her last name.
 
2018-07-17 03:06:53 PM  

Mikey1969: shut_it_down: Mikey1969: Jesus, who farking cares? We don't need to go out of our way to make a character gay. If he has a significant other, fine, if he doesn't, fine also. Who cares "how" gay he is or isn't? I really don;'t get why it mattered that he was gay in the first place. There isn't a point in any of the books where you wonder what his romantic life was about, really. I don't really know why Rowling felt the need to reveal his sexuality anyway.

We're not going out of our way to make him gay, he's a gay character. On top of that, the primary antagonist in these movies is someone Dumbledore was romantically involved with. The "gayness" of the character isn't specifically relevant, but the nature of his relationship with the villain certainly is. That's why fans are asking about it. They want to make sure the movies aren't going to be glossing over a character's homosexuality in a bid for more mass appeal.

You obviously haven't been paying attention then. People don't "gloss over" gayness now, they go WAY out of their way to make sure you understand that the character is gay and everyone attached to the film is woke AF.

Hence the debate that Jude Law might not be making Dumbledore "gay enough".


A debate you seem awfully invested in, I might add. If you think the debate is about Dumbledore being "gay enough" then you're not getting it. The concern is that it won't come up at all even though it should - not because Dumbledore is gay, but because the villain is his ex. Glossing over gay people is exactly what studios do with blockbusters. If you actually think that major studios are falling over themselves to feature gay characters in their tentpoles, you're out of your damn mind.
 
2018-07-17 03:13:18 PM  

This text is now purple: HotWingConspiracy: What is the current standard for the proper amount of gay?

Elton John.


I believe it would be...

'Weird Al' Yankovic - CNR
Youtube xLnapb-30hA
 
2018-07-17 03:15:35 PM  

PlaidJaguar: There's nothing in the books that explicitly identifies Dumbledore as gay.  I'm pretty certain that Dumbledore wasn't envisioned that way - not that I think JK created him straight and changed it, but rather his sexual orientation is entirely irrelevant to the story (because the story is about children at the school, and it would be unusual for the sexual orientation of the 120+ years old headmaster to be relevant) and as such when JK decided that he was gay there was nothing in the books to contradict that.

Which is really as it should be - a character's orientation is only relevant in situations it's directly relevant to - on a date, being seduced by a foreign agent, etc.  If you're writing a story and ask "How would a gay person react to X" and not "How would Tony, the character I've created, react to X" then you're not writing a story or creating characters, you're just playing with stereotypes.

\I refer to the author as JK not to be dismissive but because I have trouble remembering how to spell her last name.


It's not laid out explicitly, but it's strongly implied in the last book that his relationship with Grindelwald was either a romantic one or an unrequited love one.
 
2018-07-17 03:17:02 PM  
Grindlewald (the love interest in question) has already gone all dark side at this point in the continuity, right?  As in, the relationship (implied to be platonic in the books but later retconned to romantic by the author) had broken down to the point of Dumbledore and his brother getting in a straight-up murderous fight with Grindlewald and their sister has already died in the crossfire?

The implication was that this had farked up Dumbledore to the point of him never really being able to extend his trust to anyone again before it was retconned into them having been farking, I would tend to expect Dumbledore's romantic life to not exactly be... prominent at this point of the narrative.

I mean, the level of assless-chaps and hitting "the club" to pick up half-naked dudes that the stupid fans are angling for was already out of character for a stuffy british academic because the fans in question are morons who don't actually understand that gay people can have a personality outside of their sex life... but in the context of the actual story it's gonna be hard to play up romantic tension for a character whose last boyfriend murdered his innocent sister.  Just sayin', this is not really the right tree to bark up for your strong statements on social politics in imaginary magical mentors.

// Also the implications of having a literal "magical gay" whose less-literal role is also mostly to show up, fix other characters' problems, and then disappear forever because his own concerns are irrelevant might be a tiny bit problematic.  Or hilariously lamp-shady, take your pick.

// I remember a lot more of the details of a children's book series than I would have thought I did.
 
2018-07-17 03:27:46 PM  

shut_it_down: Mikey1969: shut_it_down: Mikey1969: Jesus, who farking cares? We don't need to go out of our way to make a character gay. If he has a significant other, fine, if he doesn't, fine also. Who cares "how" gay he is or isn't? I really don;'t get why it mattered that he was gay in the first place. There isn't a point in any of the books where you wonder what his romantic life was about, really. I don't really know why Rowling felt the need to reveal his sexuality anyway.

We're not going out of our way to make him gay, he's a gay character. On top of that, the primary antagonist in these movies is someone Dumbledore was romantically involved with. The "gayness" of the character isn't specifically relevant, but the nature of his relationship with the villain certainly is. That's why fans are asking about it. They want to make sure the movies aren't going to be glossing over a character's homosexuality in a bid for more mass appeal.

You obviously haven't been paying attention then. People don't "gloss over" gayness now, they go WAY out of their way to make sure you understand that the character is gay and everyone attached to the film is woke AF.

Hence the debate that Jude Law might not be making Dumbledore "gay enough".

A debate you seem awfully invested in, I might add.


Maybe that's because that's what TFA is about?

Jesus farking Christ, now people are whining if you stay on farking topic around here?
 
2018-07-17 03:37:27 PM  

Mikey1969: shut_it_down: Mikey1969: shut_it_down: Mikey1969: Jesus, who farking cares? We don't need to go out of our way to make a character gay. If he has a significant other, fine, if he doesn't, fine also. Who cares "how" gay he is or isn't? I really don;'t get why it mattered that he was gay in the first place. There isn't a point in any of the books where you wonder what his romantic life was about, really. I don't really know why Rowling felt the need to reveal his sexuality anyway.

We're not going out of our way to make him gay, he's a gay character. On top of that, the primary antagonist in these movies is someone Dumbledore was romantically involved with. The "gayness" of the character isn't specifically relevant, but the nature of his relationship with the villain certainly is. That's why fans are asking about it. They want to make sure the movies aren't going to be glossing over a character's homosexuality in a bid for more mass appeal.

You obviously haven't been paying attention then. People don't "gloss over" gayness now, they go WAY out of their way to make sure you understand that the character is gay and everyone attached to the film is woke AF.

Hence the debate that Jude Law might not be making Dumbledore "gay enough".

A debate you seem awfully invested in, I might add.

Maybe that's because that's what TFA is about?

Jesus farking Christ, now people are whining if you stay on farking topic around here?


You're more than on topic. You're invested in this issue. There's a difference, mama.
 
2018-07-17 03:47:56 PM  

IHadMeAVision: Yes, it's the "western world" that treats homosexuals terribly. Ignore the fact that virtually all the blue is in Western Europe and its former colonies.


It's like you didn't even read.

As I said, and I'll quote - "Even for many of those ok with homosexual marriage (or like we should be calling it once people get over themselves, marriage), there's a need to dig into it and make it sideshow.  Most people don't just shrug and slide past it.  And of course, the big issue: there are still governments and large portions of the voting population of most western countries trying to marginalize, ignore, degrade, or limit freedoms based on sexuality."

Accepting homosexual marriage means you got it near the 50% line, or pushed it through a court.  That's it.  Polling makes it clear that.... well, I'll requote - "large portions of the voting population" are against it still.  They also then support limiting adoption or other benefits given to married couples, etc.

Using the fact that many countries have legalized homosexual marriage as the "everything is ok" flag just makes you look foolish.
 
2018-07-17 03:54:47 PM  

Mikey1969: Long and short: I don't care if Dumbledore is gay. I DO care that people want to make it an issue enough to cry on the interwebs that someone isn't making him "gay enough".


So, like I said - you're still reacting, rather forcefully and with great personal offense in your language, to the fact that Rowling brought it up.  Because no one should care, or something.  Your reaction is one of the main things feeding it.

When you actually don't care about it - or reactions to it - then it won't be a big deal.  When a character's sexuality provokes the same mundane reaction as their hair color, then it's no longer a big deal.  Until people no longer feel the need to dwell on it, argue it, and people like you feel the need to retort that no one should care (in the face of millions that demonstrably do), it will remain a big deal.

The fact that we are even having this exact conversation is evidence that it still matters.  A lot.
 
2018-07-17 03:59:06 PM  
I remember a few years back, both of the teams going to the Superb Owl had head coaches who were attractive and successful.

And the media of course was going on and on about how this was a big deal and how meaningful it was.  And I said to the TV "No, it'll be meaningful when this happens and you don't feel the need to talk about it incessantly."

\CSJ
 
2018-07-17 03:59:31 PM  

shut_it_down: Mikey1969: shut_it_down: Mikey1969: shut_it_down: Mikey1969: Jesus, who farking cares? We don't need to go out of our way to make a character gay. If he has a significant other, fine, if he doesn't, fine also. Who cares "how" gay he is or isn't? I really don;'t get why it mattered that he was gay in the first place. There isn't a point in any of the books where you wonder what his romantic life was about, really. I don't really know why Rowling felt the need to reveal his sexuality anyway.

We're not going out of our way to make him gay, he's a gay character. On top of that, the primary antagonist in these movies is someone Dumbledore was romantically involved with. The "gayness" of the character isn't specifically relevant, but the nature of his relationship with the villain certainly is. That's why fans are asking about it. They want to make sure the movies aren't going to be glossing over a character's homosexuality in a bid for more mass appeal.

You obviously haven't been paying attention then. People don't "gloss over" gayness now, they go WAY out of their way to make sure you understand that the character is gay and everyone attached to the film is woke AF.

Hence the debate that Jude Law might not be making Dumbledore "gay enough".

A debate you seem awfully invested in, I might add.

Maybe that's because that's what TFA is about?

Jesus farking Christ, now people are whining if you stay on farking topic around here?

You're more than on topic. You're invested in this issue. There's a difference, mama.


I'm "invested" because it's what we're here farking discussing.

Khellendros: Mikey1969: Long and short: I don't care if Dumbledore is gay. I DO care that people want to make it an issue enough to cry on the interwebs that someone isn't making him "gay enough".

So, like I said - you're still reacting, rather forcefully and with great personal offense in your language, to the fact that Rowling brought it up.  Because no one should care, or something.  Your reaction is one of the main things feeding it.

When you actually don't care about it - or reactions to it - then it won't be a big deal.  When a character's sexuality provokes the same mundane reaction as their hair color, then it's no longer a big deal.  Until people no longer feel the need to dwell on it, argue it, and people like you feel the need to retort that no one should care (in the face of millions that demonstrably do), it will remain a big deal.

The fact that we are even having this exact conversation is evidence that it still matters.  A lot.


My reaction that we need to stop making a big deal out of it? Got it.
 
2018-07-17 04:01:09 PM  
It doesn't really make sense for it to be a part of this story though.

For one, it's well past the time when the two of them were friends, and as far as we know, they never saw one another again until they dueled. Since Law is saying he doesn't have any scenes with him, and this is the 2nd part of a planned pentology, I don't really see how their former relationship would factor in, short of him randomly mentioning he had a crush on the rising wizard Nazi, which, I think, would seem a pretty strange thing for him to just bring up.
 
2018-07-17 04:01:14 PM  

Boe: Jude Law was "gay enough" to play Stephen Fry's boy toy in "Wilde" so I think he's good to go



He also played a bi character in 'Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil'.
 
2018-07-17 04:03:44 PM  

Khellendros: Accepting homosexual marriage means you got it near the 50% line


We're well past that point.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-07-17 04:04:15 PM  

Khellendros: The fact that we are even having this exact conversation is evidence that it still matters.  A lot.



Counterpoint: Fark also talks about a lot of things that don't matter in the least.

Note that I am not diminishing this particular conversation. It's just that "discussed on Fark" is no barometer of social importance.
 
2018-07-17 04:13:52 PM  

Khellendros: "large portions of the voting population" are against it still.


http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/ch​a​nging-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
img.fark.netView Full Size


It's not anywhere close to 50/50 anymore (62% favor) and the gap is just going to widen as the old die off.
 
2018-07-17 04:14:44 PM  

Mikey1969: Khellendros: Mikey1969: Long and short: I don't care if Dumbledore is gay. I DO care that people want to make it an issue enough to cry on the interwebs that someone isn't making him "gay enough".

So, like I said - you're still reacting, rather forcefully and with great personal offense in your language, to the fact that Rowling brought it up. Because no one should care, or something. Your reaction is one of the main things feeding it.

When you actually don't care about it - or reactions to it - then it won't be a big deal. When a character's sexuality provokes the same mundane reaction as their hair color, then it's no longer a big deal. Until people no longer feel the need to dwell on it, argue it, and people like you feel the need to retort that no one should care (in the face of millions that demonstrably do), it will remain a big deal.

The fact that we are even having this exact conversation is evidence that it still matters. A lot.

My reaction that we need to stop making a big deal out of it? Got it.


No. You don't got it. Yours and Khellendros' ideas of "not a big deal" are vastly different. Your idea seems to be "characters can be gay as long as I don't have to see it, and movies definitely shouldn't be bringing it up without a damn specific reason." Khellendros' position seems to be "characters should be able to be gay the same way they can have blonde hair. An observable, but not particularly remarkable trait."
You want gayness to be completely unremarked upon. He wants gayness to be as ordinary has having brown eyes.
 
2018-07-17 04:27:38 PM  
How gay is enough gay?
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size

Too much?
 
2018-07-17 04:35:28 PM  

shut_it_down: Mikey1969: Khellendros: Mikey1969: Long and short: I don't care if Dumbledore is gay. I DO care that people want to make it an issue enough to cry on the interwebs that someone isn't making him "gay enough".

So, like I said - you're still reacting, rather forcefully and with great personal offense in your language, to the fact that Rowling brought it up. Because no one should care, or something. Your reaction is one of the main things feeding it.

When you actually don't care about it - or reactions to it - then it won't be a big deal. When a character's sexuality provokes the same mundane reaction as their hair color, then it's no longer a big deal. Until people no longer feel the need to dwell on it, argue it, and people like you feel the need to retort that no one should care (in the face of millions that demonstrably do), it will remain a big deal.

The fact that we are even having this exact conversation is evidence that it still matters. A lot.

My reaction that we need to stop making a big deal out of it? Got it.

No. You don't got it. Yours and Khellendros' ideas of "not a big deal" are vastly different. Your idea seems to be "characters can be gay as long as I don't have to see it, and movies definitely shouldn't be bringing it up without a damn specific reason." Khellendros' position seems to be "characters should be able to be gay the same way they can have blonde hair. An observable, but not particularly remarkable trait."
You want gayness to be completely unremarked upon. He wants gayness to be as ordinary has having brown eyes.


Boy, talk about someone not getting it. Go on, do whatever you want. If you can't figure out what I'm talking about at this point, I'm done wasting my time.
 
2018-07-17 04:38:37 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: Boe: Jude Law was "gay enough" to play Stephen Fry's boy toy in "Wilde" so I think he's good to go

He also played a bi character in 'Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil'.


And also he's Jude Law.
 
2018-07-17 04:39:21 PM  

Bungles: it's strongly implied


No, it's not.

Nothing in the provided backstory was in any way inconsistent with him just being a friend who turned out to be less of a figurative 'bad boy' and more of an actual bad person than expected.  If anything, it was slightly implied that they weren't romantically linked... not so much because the wizards seemed to have anything against gay people as because having been the lover of literally the world's highest-profile mass murderer and war criminal would probably have come up at some point when he was in the running for a position that oversees the children of what appears to be something like twenty percent plus of the global wizard population.

I mean, being a Death Eater didn't necessarily disqualify you from holding important offices in the strictly legal sense, but the headmaster position was essentially a government appointment and the Ministry was very, very explicitly avoiding any former DEs in their ranks, with the few the reader hears of generally hiding the fact as thoroughly as possible and those even suspected of it generally finding their political influence far less than it normally would have been given their historical and monetary influence (which is what the deal was with the Malfoys basically).  Your personal history including farking the local equivalent of Sauron crossed with Saruman would likely mean dementors coming for you if you came within a thousand feet of a school, not the government awarding you a position running one, no matter how much of a war hero you'd become after you broke up.

To read a romantic relationship into the original text you basically have to be discarding everything about the actual books and replacing it with your own personal fanfiction.  Which, in fairness, go ahead... everyone else on the internet basically does that as a hobby.  But try to be aware that you're doing it, because otherwise it makes discussing the actual published works rather confusing for everyone.

// I mean, I'm not hating on the retcon the author did or anything, the character didn't really have a defined romantic life due to mentor figures basically not having romantic subplots by definition, and when she was asked the question she basically flipped a coin and then stuck with the result to the end, making her an excellent Dungeon Master if nothing else.  But, again, be aware that it was a retcon even if you think it's a good one.
 
2018-07-17 04:40:52 PM  

This text is now purple: shut_it_down: We're not going out of our way to make him gay, he's a gay character. On top of that, the primary antagonist in these movies is someone Dumbledore was romantically involved with. The "gayness" of the character isn't specifically relevant, but the nature of his relationship with the villain certainly is. That's why fans are asking about it. They want to make sure the movies aren't going to be glossing over a character's homosexuality in a bid for more mass appeal.

They make want to be careful about overplaying the homosexuality of their big bad, the Nazi-surrogate Grindelwald.

\Not that prominent Nazis weren't gay


Yep. They're real worried about that.
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-07-17 04:47:56 PM  

Mikey1969: shut_it_down: Mikey1969: Khellendros: Mikey1969: Long and short: I don't care if Dumbledore is gay. I DO care that people want to make it an issue enough to cry on the interwebs that someone isn't making him "gay enough".

So, like I said - you're still reacting, rather forcefully and with great personal offense in your language, to the fact that Rowling brought it up. Because no one should care, or something. Your reaction is one of the main things feeding it.

When you actually don't care about it - or reactions to it - then it won't be a big deal. When a character's sexuality provokes the same mundane reaction as their hair color, then it's no longer a big deal. Until people no longer feel the need to dwell on it, argue it, and people like you feel the need to retort that no one should care (in the face of millions that demonstrably do), it will remain a big deal.

The fact that we are even having this exact conversation is evidence that it still matters. A lot.

My reaction that we need to stop making a big deal out of it? Got it.

No. You don't got it. Yours and Khellendros' ideas of "not a big deal" are vastly different. Your idea seems to be "characters can be gay as long as I don't have to see it, and movies definitely shouldn't be bringing it up without a damn specific reason." Khellendros' position seems to be "characters should be able to be gay the same way they can have blonde hair. An observable, but not particularly remarkable trait."
You want gayness to be completely unremarked upon. He wants gayness to be as ordinary has having brown eyes.

Boy, talk about someone not getting it. Go on, do whatever you want. If you can't figure out what I'm talking about at this point, I'm done wasting my time.


I think I figured you out just fine.
 
2018-07-17 04:58:39 PM  
It's pretty apparent now that Rowling's edict that Dumbledore is gay was queerbaiting.
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report