So, given the chance, Voldemort went after a baby. Then after he came back to life, he had a kid killed, and held a fourteen-year-old in a graveyard. Then when he got some real power, he took over a school and started torturing the students.
Does Voldemort have a thing for kids?
Technically, Cedric was an adult according to wizarding standards. Voldy had a thing for killing, not with kids. He wasn't known to torture except to get information or to humiliate an opponent.
Bob
I dunno, I dare say being killed would be pretty humiliating if you have a ghost. But it's never said what Voldemort likes to do with the bodies after they're dead...
sharein the book and film Deathly Hallows he fed one body to Nagini.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
Very few wizards and witches came back as ghosts. With them, I never viewed that they found their deaths to be humiliating. Voldy didn't care much about the dead bodies unless he felt like turning them into inferi.
Bob
It's not like they really go around asking every ghost they find, "Oh, did you find your death particularly humiliating, or are you cool with it?" either.
shareSo, given the chance, Voldemort went after a baby. Then after he came back to life, he had a kid killed, and held a fourteen-year-old in a graveyard. Then when he got some real power, he took over a school and started torturing the students.
Does Voldemort have a thing for kids?
Cedric isn't a kid- he was 17 and on the verge of becoming an adult wizard. He died because he was in the way.
He wants to control the Hogwarts students because they are the next generation of wizards and if you can control the schools long enough to make them loyal to you, you win. Also he had a respect for Hogwarts in particular because it's where he grew up and learned magic. It's his favourite place.
This 'thing' is mostly towards Harry because he was prophesied to be the one to defeat him.
His favourite place is a school because there's lots of kiddies there. He went after Harry when he was a kid because he liked kids, and the prophecy was a convenient excuse. I don't think he was expecting things to backfire so severely.
shareHis favorite place was his school because that was his first real home, the first place he felt he belonged. The orphanage where he lived he hated all of the kids there and enjoyed torturing them.
Voldy had a thing for power and having the entire British wizarding world's children under his influence would help him with power. As for baby Harry, Voldy heard part of the prophecy that stated that a certain wizard born at a certain time would have the power to vanquish him. He wanted to eliminate that possibility so he tried to kill baby Harry. After Voldy's return, his arrogance was such that he would not let anyone else kill Harry, forcing them to face each other until one of them died.
Bob
See? You just admitted it. Voldemort had a thing for kids because it made him feel powerful.
shareThere is no "thing" he had for children. He had a thing for power. His abilities made him feel powerful. Creating horcruxes made him feel invulnerable. The only kid he had a "thing" for was Harry because he couldn't kill him as a baby. This led him to need to kill Harry to prove himself. However, he ran into problems. Frist with Quirrell, the man he was inhabiting, couldn't stand Harry touch due to Voldy, their wands connected at the cemetary when he tried to kill Harry in the graveyard, he was injured when trying to inhabit Harry in OoP, and finally, he really freaked out when he felt he killed Harry but Harry came back.
Voldy didn't care anything about any other kid.
Bob
He really likes to punish Harry. He also found himself liking punishing other children like the dominant man he is.
shareAs a kid, Voldy punished his fellow orphans because he hated them and being there. Harry was the only other kid he punished but that was because he could not kill Harry when he wanted to. What other child did Voldy personally punish? What other children did he even come into contact with? The only two other scenes where Voldy, as an adult, had any kind of scene with children were in the books. The first was when he killed the mother (and possibly her two young children while searching for Gregorovich. The second was when he was thinking back to the night he killed the Potters. A child joked with him about his costume but as soon as the child saw his face, he ran back to his mother. Voldy thought about killing him, but felt it was unnecessary.
Can you inform me of other scenes not counting Harry or the orphans where Voldy personally punished other children? With Draco, he was punishing the Malfoys, not Draco specifically.
Bob
See? You just admitted Voldemort liked punishing kids.
share
Voldy didn't care anything about any other kid
"If Voldy wanted to take over the world, why wouldn't he install one of his most trusted servants (Snape) as Minister of Magic or even as Prime Minister of England. Why a school?"
He installed an ally as Minister of Magic. The movie showed Thicknesse was secretly allied with Voldy while in the books, he was imperiused by a DE. Snape was at the school to keep Hogwarts under his control as well. Hogwarts was a place to raise the next generations of DEs. It was also a place where they knew there were Order members who could have raised a rebellion.
"Why was the loyalty of these kids so important to him?"
It wasn't just the children (who technically weren't there), it was everyone. The point was to defeat them with fear of him alone. He didn't necessarily want their loyalty, just their fearful respect.
"Rowling had to make Voldy drawn to this school and the kids who attend."
Voldy was drawn to the school because it was the last hiding place for his horcruxes and the trio got there first. After getting rid of the Carrows and Snape, the Order set it up as a foothold to help Harry find what he needed to find. It wasn't VOldy's idea to turn it into a battle field, it simply turned into that. Also, Rowling used Hogwarts as the final battle scene as it was the most recognizable place in the series and she still wanted to have scenes there.
Bob
He installed an ally as Minister of Magic.
It wasn't just the children (who technically weren't there), it was everyone.
Voldy was drawn to the school because it was the last hiding place for his horcruxes and the trio got there first.
"Then why such a central focus on Hogwarts? Controlling teachers and students isn't the usual path to world domination."
I already explained it. He wanted a place to raise more DEs and impose his racist ideology. A school where only those with proven wizarding heritage are mandated to attend is the perfect place to do so. Also, this would have been a perfect place to foment rebellion.
"Voldy knew the trio were hunting horcruxes. Voldy knew there were some horcruxes in Hogwarts. Voldy, through Snape and the Carrows, had control of Hogwarts since Dumbledore's death. So why didn't Voldy secure the remaining horcruxes from Hogwarts long before the trio arrived there?"
He only found out about an hour or so before the trio got to Hogwarts. Voldy went to the other hiding places first, thinking the one at Hogwarts was the most protected. Voldy went to the ring location first as it was the most unprotected (the Gaunt House). The second place he went was the locket's place in the cave. Both of these were chosen first as Voldy knew Dumbledore knew about his past.
For some inexplicable reason, in the movie, the filmmakers decided to have him raise an army as soon as he realized the trio was hunting for his horcruxes. Quite stupid if he wanted to protect his horcruxes.
"Let's face it, the horcruxes were hidden in places that the trio had been before.:
Technically, no. While the diadem was housed in the Room of Requirement, only Harry (and Ginny in the movie) had been in the specific room. Others have questioned how Voldy could have thought only he had been in that room since it had things hidden in it that had been there for centuries. Draco was the only other Hogwarts student who had been in the specific room.
Bob
I already explained it. He wanted a place to raise more DEs and impose his racist ideology. A school where only those with proven wizarding heritage are mandated to attend is the perfect place to do so.
See? You just admitted Voldemort liked punishing kids.
He only found out about an hour or so before the trio got to Hogwarts.
"Let's face it, the horcruxes were hidden in places that the trio had been before.:
Technically, no. While the diadem was housed in the Room of Requirement, only Harry (and Ginny in the movie) had been in the specific room.
"A. Bob has admitted that Voldy had a special focus devoted to kids."
No I haven't. I am saying he didn't have a special focus on kids. Hogwarts just represented an important place of prestige and power in the wizarding world in Britain. It also represented a possible place to foment rebellion so he needed it to be under his control.
"Voldy felt it, every time a horcrux was destroyed "
This was a movie thing only. In the book, Voldy was actually shocked that he couldn't feel them being destroyed. However, in the movies, the only ones he felt were the final ones--the cup, the diadem, and Nagini. It seems that, according to the movie series, only if he was near them when they were destroyed could Voldy feel the horcruxes' destruction. Nothing is shown when Dumbledore destroys the ring or when the locket is destroyed. We can take that to mean it wasn't plot relevant--which doesn't match with the later horcruxes, or that he didn't feel them.
"After that, Ron destroys a horcrux in Godric's Hollow."
Again, the locket was destroyed in the Forest of Dean, not Godric's Hollow. They are two separate places. However, the way you are describing it, then movie Voldy was an idiot for not trying to protect his horcruxes more. I don't see it that way, though.
"The storage area may have been a separate compartment but they had all been in that "Room". That's how Ron and Hermione figured out where Harry was after they destroyed the Cup. They were familiar with the place."
The ROR did not have compartments, it had magically different rooms. Ron and Hermione met Harry in the hallway, presumably back to the RoR which is the last place Harry was. The large room where they entered into Hogwarts was the RoR. In the book, Harry was far more familiar with the room where the horcrux was hidden as he had moved it to hide his book. In the HBP movie, Ginny was more familiar and, notably, Harry didn't have his "spidey sense", knowing a horcrux was in the room.
However, it should also be noted that while Harry (and Ginny in the movies) and Draco were familiar with the specific room, Voldy didn't know that and he figured that no one else could have found out about the room. In truth, Dumbledore was the first person to mention being in the room back in the GoF book. Dobby was next in OoP and showed Harry where and how to get in. Draco and later a number of DEs were next to make their first appearance in the room, specifically the room where the horcrux was hiding.
Bob
I am saying he didn't have a special focus on kids. Hogwarts just represented an important place of prestige and power in the wizarding world in Britain. It also represented a possible place to foment rebellion so he needed it to be under his control.
This was a movie thing only. In the book, Voldy was actually shocked that he couldn't feel them being destroyed
Again, the locket was destroyed in the Forest of Dean, not Godric's Hollow. They are two separate places
They are two separate places. However, the way you are describing it, then movie Voldy was an idiot for not trying to protect his horcruxes more. I don't see it that way, though.
The ROR did not have compartments, it had magically different rooms.
Harry was far more familiar with the room where the horcrux was hidden as he had moved it to hide his book...Voldy didn't know that...
"Hogwarts only had those attributes because it involved kids."
Not kids specifically, it acted as a possible site of propaganda. He already had the Ministry and for all intents and purposes, the Daily Prophet (which seemed more likely to act to support the Ministry's position). Nothing was aid about the St Mungo's (the hospital), but it is likely Voldy had someone in charge there as well. He even took over Gringots from the goblins.
Voldy wanted as many established places of prestige in the wizarding world under his control and he had them. The fact there were kids at Hogwarts meant nothing. It was the first place Voldy felt was a real home and where he belonged.
"Most also know this is a Message Board created for discussion of the movie. "
The movie and the book are discussed here. You can't discuss one without the other, especially when the movies are inadequate. Also, correcting the facts in the movie or book are not irrelevant to the discussion.
"Any sensible person who knew pieces of his soul were being destroyed would make all efforts to stop it from happening."
Again, this first happened with the cup. No other horcruxes before this in the movies affected Voldy when it was destroyed. The only thing to assume from this is that Voldy had to be near the horcrux when it was destroyed to feel it.
"I would think Voldy would have means of knowing whether an enemy had gotten close to a horcrux. Any sensible magic megalomaniac would."
But he didn't. This was not established in either the book or the movie so it can be assumed it didn't happen. Voldy had to be told the cup was taken in both media.
Bob
"Hogwarts only had those attributes because it involved kids."
Not kids specifically
Voldy wanted as many established places of prestige in the wizarding world under his control and he had them.
"Most also know this is a Message Board created for discussion of the movie. "
The movie and the book are discussed here.
especially when the movies are inadequate.
No other horcruxes before this in the movies affected Voldy when it was destroyed.
"I would think Voldy would have means of knowing whether an enemy had gotten close to a horcrux. Any sensible magic megalomaniac would."
But he didn't. This was not established in either the book or the movie so it can be assumed it didn't happen. Voldy had to be told the cup was taken in both media.
"It really is kids, specifically."
In part. one thing tyrants always do is take control of the educational system. This enables the tyrant to manipulate young impressionable minds and mold them into what he wants. Voldemort wanted the school to create future death eaters. also it better enabled him to control muggleborn witches and wizards.
"Which begs the question of why Hogwarts was so important to him. Yes, there is Harry Potter, who is a kid. But we must wonder why he hid some of his Horcruxes in Hogwarts, a kids' school, of all places. A place controlled by the one guy who was his match. One way or another, kids and a kids' space like Hogwarts had an irresistible magnetism for Voldy."
I've explained in part but Voldemort had a emotional attachment to the school. it was home to him. Like in The Wizard of Oz, there is no place like home.
"More accurate to say we don't KNOW if the earlier horcrux destruction affected him."
logic would suggest based on information in the film, that Voldemort did not know that his horcruxes had been destroyed until the cup. if he had, he would have taken pains to further protecdt the remaining horcruxes. he didn't there fore he didn't know.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
In part. one thing tyrants always do is take control of the educational system.
Voldemort wanted the school to create future death eaters. also it better enabled him to control muggleborn witches and wizards.
I've explained in part but Voldemort had a emotional attachment to the school. it was home to him.
logic would suggest based on information in the film, that Voldemort did not know that his horcruxes had been destroyed until the cup. if he had, he would have taken pains to further protecdt the remaining horcruxes. he didn't there fore he didn't know.
if he had, he would have taken pains to further protecdt the remaining horcruxes. he didn't there fore he didn't know.
"No, it is because they want to control the minds of kids."
that's correct and that is why Voldemort wanted to control Hogwarts. by controlling the educational system (Hogwarts) he could control and mold young minds to his liking.
"Controlling society by controlling children. Exactly."
controlling children would avail him nothing in itself. controlling children who would grow up to become his elite troops (his SS) would.
"No. His attachment to Hogwarts was related to the concept of childhood. (Same with Dorothy, correct?)"
incorrect. it was related to his concept of home. Hogwarts was home to him.
"I do not find that logical. Why would destroying a horcrux cup cause agony but destroying a horcrux locket not be felt? If anything, the destruction of a Slytherin relic should have been more painful to him than a Hufflepuff relic."
if he felt the destruction of the locket or the diary for that matter, he would have made special efforts to sercure the remaining horcruxes. he did that for Nagini when he learned Harry had stolen the cup from the vault. but not before because he didn't know.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
controlling children would avail him nothing in itself. controlling children who would grow up to become his elite troops (his SS) would.
it was related to his concept of home. Hogwarts was home to him.
..if he felt the destruction of the locket or the diary for that matter, he would have made special efforts to sercure the remaining horcruxes.
"It really is kids, specifically. Hogwarts didn't have magical GED or night classes for adults, as far as I know."
If the only place he took over was Hogwarts, that would be a valid argument. However, Voldy took over the whole of Britain's wizarding world. Did he have a thing for adults because he took over the Ministry? No kids there. Truth is he left the management to others and focused on his own goals, which for most of the final book and seventh movie (though not shown as much as the book) was finding the Elder Wand. His only other obsession was Harry.
"Which begs the question of why Hogwarts was so important to him."
Like pete said, and I have mentioned as well, Hogwarts was the first place Voldy really felt like he belonged, his first real home. Also, three of the objects he chose to make into horcruxes were Slytherin's locket, the Hufflepuff Cup, and the diadem of Rowena Ravenclaw. What was the link to those items? They all belonged to the founders of Hogwarts. Coincidence? No. This provides another link to how he viewed Hogwarts, as an important link to pure wizardry. As for why he hid a horcrux there, he did this not long after he graduated after trying to get a teaching spot, specifically DADA professor. Dumbledore was headmaster and refused his request, not only knowing his proclivities, but also thinking he didn't have enough experience.
"The default assumption about something not shown is that the destruction of a horcrux affected Voldy the same way at times it was not shown to the way it affected him when it was shown."
That is not the default. You may think of it as a default if you wish, though. The default is that if a reaction is plot relevant at any point in the series, if not shown, it can be assumed that it didn't occur.
"Thus we are in agreement that "Voldy acted silly in the movie","
They wanted it to be a "300" like look of an overwhelming army attacking a smaller army. But why raise an army before you know there will be a battle?
Bob
Did he have a thing for adults because he took over the Ministry?
His only other obsession was Harry.
Like pete said, and I have mentioned as well, Hogwarts was the first place Voldy really felt like he belonged
That is not the default. You may think of it as a default if you wish, though. The default is that if a reaction is plot relevant at any point in the series, if not shown, it can be assumed that it didn't occur.
They wanted it to be a "300" like look of an overwhelming army attacking a smaller army. But why raise an army before you know there will be a battle?
"Yes. He did."
So you are admitting that Voldy didn't have a thing for kids since he treated everyone the same.
"You are dodging the already posed question of why Voldy chose to sequester deeply personal and intimate pieces of his soul within personal items representing Hogwarts' House Founders and even within the walls of Hogwarts School itself."
No, you are ignoring my question. We were talking about his obsessions during DH, not in his past. Voldy was obsessed with having power and killing Harry. Even in the past, he wasn't obsessed with the founders as much as finding meaningful relics to turn into horcruxes.
"So, you agree that Harry Potter was not Voldy's only obsession. Hogwarts was also."
Hogwarts was not ever an obsession for Voldy. It was his first home, the first place he felt like he belonged. Harry felt the same way about Hogwarts as young Tom Riddle did. Voldy hated children. They surrounded him in the orphanage, a place he hated to be.
"hat was the focus of Hogwarts before, during and after Voldemort?"
Educating young adults to become competent witches and wizards. Hogwarts can be separated from children, especially in this instance where Hogwarts represented power to Voldy, not children.
"If Voldemort is shown doubling over in pain when a horcrux is destroyed in the movie (which we are disussing) a couple times, there is no reason to think he was unaffected by earlier horcrux destructions"
We can only discuss about the movie here. Voldy was actually shocked in the book that he could not feel when his horcruxes were destroyed. But again, if it was so important once, then its absence should be telling. It's just like with wandlore. You are using previous instances of non-action to prove your point.
Bob
"Yes. He did."
So you are admitting that Voldy didn't have a thing for kids since he treated everyone the same.
No, you are ignoring my question. We were talking about his obsessions during DH, not in his past.
Even in the past, he wasn't obsessed with the founders as much as finding meaningful relics to turn into horcruxes.
Hogwarts was not ever an obsession for Voldy. It was his first home, the first place he felt like he belonged..... Voldy hated children. They surrounded him in the orphanage, a place he hated to be.
Educating young adults to become competent witches and wizards. Hogwarts can be separated from children, especially in this instance where Hogwarts represented power to Voldy, not children.
We can only discuss about the movie here. Voldy was actually shocked in the book that he could not feel when his horcruxes were destroyed.
if it was so important once, then its absence should be telling. It's just like with wandlore. You are using previous instances of non-action to prove your point.
"In what way does acknowledging that "Voldemort had a thing for adults" mean that he "didn't have a thing for kids"?"
If he had a "thing" for only one group, that is fine. If he has a "thing" for two groups that encompass everyone, that is pointless. His ultimate "thing" was pureblood vs Muggle-born. Now show me where, as an adult, he interacted with children.
"So you think the power represented by Hogwarts was in the bricks, floors and walls, not in the children there?"
The power was in the faculty and the potential of indoctrinating future adults. Voldy didn't have any specific view of the students other than potential followers, not as a group of teens.
"I do not remember anything in the OP or in my part of the discussion which restricted the topic to Voldemort in Deathly Hallows."
Taking over Hogwarts was only something he had done in DH. Voldy steered clear of Hogwarts until after Dumbledore was dead.
"Why would Harry feel such a lifelong connection to his soulmate Voldemort and yet Voldy feels nothing when portions of his soul are destroyed?"
Harry could only sense when a horcrux was near. With Nagini, it was different as she was a living horcrux and had her own thoughts that Harry could pick up. Even Harry could not feel anything when the horcruxes were destroyed.
Bob
"his arrogance was such that he would not let anyone else kill Harry, forcing them to face each other until one of them died."
it was not just arrogance. some degree of necessity was involved as well.Voldy held power over others through fear. if a child defeats him, if he cannot defeat a child, how can anyone fear him. he becomes a joke. and that no tyrant can accept.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
Doing things to kids made him feel powerful, essentially.
shareWhy is anyone giving this idiot a serious reply? He's clearly a moronic troll. This thread is pathetic.
sharePersonally I find it more admirable to respond seriously than to resort to name calling. Besides, IMO it led to an interesting sub-thread between A_Bob and bsharporflat.
shareI may be an idiot and I may be moronic, but I certainly am not a troll. Dear sir, do you see my bridge anywhere? No? Ergo, I'm not a troll.
shareInternet trolls don't hide under bridges. If only they would!
Trolling is a form of fishing. And internet trolls are fishing for an argument, with anyone or everyone. The more, the better. Rather than lurking under a bridge, they are constantly seeking attention.
That doesn't sound like me at all, honestly. Are you sure you're not the troll?
shareThat doesn't sound like me at all, honestly. Are you sure you're not the troll?
I've never even been fishing. I don't even know how to put the bait on the hook, so I can't possibly be a troll.
shareOnly if they get in his way.
There's a scene in the Deathly Hallows book where Voldemort is heading to the Potters to kill Harry. A trick-or-treater passes him on the street, and Voldemort thinks about how he could kill the kid, but doesn't, because it's not necessary.
Reportin' live for Black TV: White folks are dead, we gettin' the f*@# outta here!
A trick-or-treater passes him on the street, and Voldemort thinks about how he could kill the kid, but doesn't, because it's not necessary.
Voldemort likes killing everyone, not just kids.
Reportin' live for Black TV: White folks are dead, we gettin' the f*@# outta here!
Voldemort likes killing everyone, not just kids.
Voldy will kill anyone who gets in his way. He killed a Muggle woman who had the misfortune to live in Gregorovich's former house when Voldy showed up to find him. He killed witches, wizards, and goblins when he became furious about discovering the trio stole his cup. He killed Gregorovich and Grindelwald after getting the information he needed from them. He killed his father and grandparents after finding out his father was a Muggle who abandoned his mother. He killed Frank Bryce when he got too nosy.
Voldy goes for murder first when someone is no longer of use to him or he just gets mad.
Bob
But he especially likes killing kids.
shareI don't think killing gives him any degree of pleasure. it is simply something he does. if we try to diagnose him in psychological terms, he would be a sociopath.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
I don't think killing gives him any degree of pleasure. it is simply something he does. if we try to diagnose him in psychological terms, he would be a sociopath.
wanting to kill and taking pleasure in killing are two different things. they do not automatically go hand in hand. sociopaths kill easily but feel nothing in response to it.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
What kids did he take pleasure in killing? He was sociopathic in how he dealt with his fellow orphans, but I don't think he killed any of them. He tried killing Harry, but that was due to the prophecy, not because he enjoyed or really cared about kids.
Bob
He took pleasure in killing Harry and showing off his limp body to everyone. He was right into that.
shareHe took pleasure with Harry because it was at that point his third attempt to kill Harry. The first time he tried to kill Harry, it was due to the prophecy. The second time, it was primarily due to his inability to kill baby Harry and that his attempt caused him to lose his body. By the third attempt, Voldy was frustrated and by this point, Harry was technically no longer a kid. Wizards and witches come of age when they are seventeen.
Bob
It's also 17 in North Korea, but nobody seriously uses North Korea as a model for what age we judge a person to be an adult. Harry was a child when Voldemort killed him because he was seventeen.
shareI don't consider anyone who is 17 to be a kid or child. They may be defined as a minor in many places, but not a kid or child. In the HP universe, they were of age at 17.
Bob
So essentially you've just said you think North Korea is doing the right thing, then?
shareI think of kids and children to be about until the age of thirteen or fourteen. After that, they are better described as young adults. Children and kids can't drive. Children and kids can't stay home alone overnight unsupervised.
Childhood leads to adolescence leads to adulthood. Once in adolescence, you are no longer a child.
Bob
I think of kids and children to be about until the age of thirteen or fourteen. After that, they are better described as young adults. Children and kids can't drive. Children and kids can't stay home alone overnight unsupervised.
Childhood leads to adolescence leads to adulthood. Once in adolescence, you are no longer a child.
"The essential aspect of adolescence is not the ability to drive. It is the onset of sexuality."
I never said driving was an essential aspect of adolescence. The onset of sexuality is also not the essential aspect. My point was that there is an expectation of responsibility in starting in young teens that is absent in those younger. Even in the HP series, no one younger than a third year (thirteen-years-old) is allowed to go to Hogsmead. Prefects are chosen from fifth year students as they are deemed responsible enough to hold that kind of responsibility.
Bob
I never said driving was an essential aspect of adolescence. The onset of sexuality is also not the essential aspect.
My point was that there is an expectation of responsibility in starting in young teens that is absent in those younger.
"It is. Especially if you understand evolution."
The onset of sexuality is there upon birth. Young children who are interested in the difference between boys and girls are showing that initial interest in sexuality. The onset of sexual maturity is the start of adolescence.
"But responsibility, while important, is not the "essential" purpose of adolescence."
I agree, but I never said it was. I said adolescence is when parents and custodial adults give adolescents more responsibilities than they had when they were younger. This is, in part, to help them to be able to grow and be able to handle larger responsibilities later on.
"I think that leads to the more interesting discussion of Voldemort's sexual development (or lack thereof). That is more interesting to me than the main topic of this thread."
Voldy was asexual. The books (as well as Rowling) state that he was incapable of experiencing love. It was why he was forced to flee Harry's mind in OoP. The love Harry felt was too painful for Voldy. In fact, in the book, the only way Harry could block Voldy's thoughts was to feel intense love, or at the time he was feeling it, grief.
Bob
The onset of sexuality is there upon birth. Young children who are interested in the difference between boys and girls are showing that initial interest in sexuality.
I said adolescence is when parents and custodial adults give adolescents more responsibilities than they had when they were younger.
Voldy was asexual. The books (as well as Rowling) state that he was incapable of experiencing love.
"It is the adult interpretation of interest in genitals that is "sexual" not the childrens'. If it weren't for adults, children would think nothing more of genitals than any other body part."
You don't know children. The genitals have many more nerve endings. Young boys find much more pleasure in playing with their penises than in playing with their toes or ears. The same thing with girls and their vaginas. And yes, learning about sexual differences is part of sexuality. Why do you think they eventually and naturally segregate into boys and girls while playing?
"And I said sexuality is the defining aspect of adolescence, not "responsibility"."
Sexuality is the defining biological aspect of adolescence. Responsibility is the social importance during adolescence.
"A sociopath may be incapable of feeling love. Do you really think a sociopath is, therefore, unable or uninterested in sex?"
He may or may not. I take your description of sex and love being separate, however, Voldy was never shown as anything but asexual.
"Many abused children learn early that sex is an expression of power and domination, not love."
Voldy wasn't an abused child, he was an abuser. Even as a child, Voldy used his magic to torture and abuse the other children. I can't see him reverting to non-magic ways to abuse children or anyone else.
Bob
You don't know children. The genitals have many more nerve endings. Young boys find much more pleasure in playing with their penises than in playing with their toes or ears. The same thing with girls and their vaginas.
And yes, learning about sexual differences is part of sexuality.
Why do you think they eventually and naturally segregate into boys and girls while playing?
Sexuality is the defining biological aspect of adolescence. Responsibility is the social importance during adolescence.
Voldy was never shown as anything but asexual.
Voldy wasn't an abused child, he was an abuser.
"My dear boy' said Dippet kindly, "I cannot possibly let you stay at
school over the summer. Surely you want to go home for the holidays?"
"No' said Riddle at once. "I'd much rather stay at Hogwarts than go
back to that - to that -"
Even as a child, Voldy used his magic to torture and abuse the other children. I can't see him reverting to non-magic ways to abuse children or anyone else.
"Anyway, nerve endings do not equate with sexuality. Sexuality involves genital interaction with another person."
Sexuality begins with the understanding of the anatomical differences between boys and girls. This is why I presumed you don't understand children, or at least the psychology of them.
If you believe that sexuality involves genital interaction with others, then what do you think of dating? Is that not teenage sexuality? What about sexting? Does that count as interaction? What about two young children who are "playing doctor" and touching each other?
Sexuality starts at birth and goes through age-appropriate stages.
"Because boys and girls tend to have behavioral differences and activity preferences which have nothing to do with sexual thoughts or actions."
Part of it has to do with behavioural differences. Other parts have to do with sexuality and the preference for segregating due to sexuality. Cooties is not a childhood disease because of the difference in how boys and girls play. It is a form of sexual/gender identifying, aka sexuality. I was not one of those kids who segregated himself. My two best friends throughout elementary school were girls.
"I would agree except I wouldn't say responsibility is the ONLY thing that is important in adolescence."
I never said it was the ONLY thing important to teenagers. I said responsibility was of social importance, possibly the most important one, but not the only one.
"Just because their sexuality isn't shown, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."
So show me how Voldy was sexual. He was unmarried, never shown to prefer female (or male) companionship, and preferred to work alone, showing fear.
"Where do you think an abusive kid LEARNS abusive behavior?"
Where did Voldy learn abusive behaviour? He was born with it. It was innate. This was something Rowling tried to show. Most of the time, I agree with you that children learn abuse by being abuse, but this was not the case with Voldy.
Do you think that as a fifteen-year-old Tom Riddle was being abused by his fellow orphans? No, he was the abuser and everyone in the orphanage dreaded the summer months when he returned. Tom didn't want to return to the orphanage because it was a horrible place, a place where he wasn't understood or felt like he belonged.
"I have trouble believing Tom Riddle was NOT sexually abusive, once he started having those thoughts."
I thought you didn't believe anything about the Harry Potter series. Or have you changed your mind? You can believe he was sexually abusive, I see him as merely torturous in other ways.
Bob
Sexuality begins with the understanding of the anatomical differences between boys and girls. This is why I presumed you don't understand children, or at least the psychology of them.
If you believe that sexuality involves genital interaction with others, then what do you think of dating? Is that not teenage sexuality?
What about sexting? Does that count as interaction?
Sexuality starts at birth and goes through age-appropriate stages.
So show me how Voldy was sexual.
Where did Voldy learn abusive behaviour? He was born with it. It was innate.
"I have trouble believing Tom Riddle was NOT sexually abusive, once he started having those thoughts."
I thought you didn't believe anything about the Harry Potter series.
You can believe he was sexually abusive, I see him as merely torturous in other ways.
"We are discussing the adolescence as the onset of SEX which is essentially reproductive behavior, at an evolutionary level."
Here is the crux of the problem. You think seem to think of sexuality is the act of sex. It is far different than that. Sexuality is how people understand themselves and others. Childhood sexuality is about learning the difference between boys and girls, learning where babies come from, why daddy and mommy love each other, and possibly why they or their friend has two mommies or two daddies.
Teenage sexuality is about understanding romantic love, discovering the kind of person they are attracted to, dealing with sexual feelings, etc.
I am sorry if this term was confusing but again, I was using sexuality as it is used in psychological and sociological contexts.
"Are you claiming there are is a large percentage of adult humans who are completely asexual?"
No, not many people are, but Voldy is one of those who is.
"You don't understand child developmental psychology at all, if you think that."
You are either being a troll or are illiterate. Please reread what I said: "Most of the time, I agree with you that children learn abuse by being abuse, but this was not the case with Voldy." Note that I agreed that most of the time, children learn abuse from their abusers. I do doubt you understand developmental psychology since you don't understand sexual development in children.
"If Rowling wanted us to think Tom Riddle was somehow born abusive, she wouldn't have written him as raised in an orphanage."
Tom was described as "a funny baby" by the orphanage director, but not funny as in good as she described him as a "funny boy" as well. She added, "He hardly ever cried, you know. And then, when he got a little older, he was...odd." She also added, after being assured Dumbledore would take him no matter what, "He scares the other children." (all quotes HBP p 267). Now, I won't say the orphanage was a healthy place for a person who was born with such a proclivity toward sociopathy to grow up, but I also believe Rowling intended us to read that Voldy was the bully, never the victim.
"Hence my use of the phrase "I have trouble believing..."."
You are still referring to a fictional story which you have stated you cannot believe in something. Having trouble believing means it is possible to believe in fictional stories.
Bob
You think seem to think of sexuality is the act of sex.
Sexuality is how people understand themselves and others
I am sorry if this term was confusing but again, I was using sexuality as it is used in psychological and sociological contexts
"Are you claiming there are is a large percentage of adult humans who are completely asexual?"
No, not many people are, but Voldy is one of those who is.
Please reread what I said: "Most of the time, I agree with you that children learn abuse by being abuse, but this was not the case with Voldy."
I do doubt you understand developmental psychology since you don't understand sexual development in children.
I also believe Rowling intended us to read that Voldy was the bully, never the victim.
"The discussion was about adolescence and how that is when the reproductively mature act of sex starts to become possible."
It was about the onset of sexuality. You are the one who seems to view sexuality only as sexual maturity. That is an incorrect definition. Because we are sexual beings, our sexuality begins when we are born. We learn things at different stages of our development to be ready for when we enter adolescence, or the onset of sexual maturity.
"A truly bizarre and, with due respect, very shallow statement."
Fine, let me restate it. Sexuality is how people understand each other in certain aspects such as male vs female as well as understanding their own bodies and sexual thoughts when they arrive.
"True sexual thoughts do not occur in humans until adolescence,"
This is irrelevant to everything I have stated and more proof that you are confusing terminology. Masturbation begins when children are very young. This is not about mature feelings or sexual fantasies, but because it feels good. Of course, the way you seem to think, if you saw a boy masturbating, you would probably assume he was abused.
This type of thing nearly led to a witch hunt in California decades ago. A preschool girl played with herself at a day care during nap time, scratching her labia. Her mother got upset at seeing the scratches and demanded to know where the scratches came from. The girl, scared, lied and said someone at the day care. Thankfully, the person in question hadn't been there that day and it did finally come out that it was the girl who did it to herself, but things could have gone horribly wrong.
Understanding age appropriate sexual behaviours in children is vital to understanding sexuality in children. Seeing two young children playing naked together does not mean they are doing bad things, they are just curious.
"Just because a character in Harry Potter isn't shown having sex, it doesn't mean they are asexual."
Never said they were. However, Voldy's only issues were in gaining power, defeating death with horcruxes, and eventually killing Harry.
"if Rowling wanted to make it clear that Voldemort was a born sociopath, she would have had him raised in a loving household and shown how his deviant personality was expressed DESPITE the presence of love and the absence of abuse."
Why would that be the only reason for showing his sociopathy (which also combined with psychopathy)? She showed him, as a baby, not to cry. She wanted to show that someone who was conceived without love (basically Merope raped Tom Sr and mind raped him to stay with her). That false love and inbred family who abused their daughter/sister was what helped to create this ultimate evil.
"If you knew anything about child development psychology, you would know that the worst form of child abuse is neglect and absence of family structure."
Rowling showed that as well with Harry, yet he persevered, mind you with an anxious-avoidant attachment. But this isn't about Rowling understanding psychology, but about a singular character who was not intended to be evil due to his upbringing, but due to his inherent nature.
"Notice how Voldy treats his followers. He isn't sociopathic. He is hierarchial."
I will add, like I did above, that he is psychopathic, if not also sociopathic.
Bob
It was about the onset of sexuality. You are the one who seems to view sexuality only as sexual maturity
Because we are sexual beings, our sexuality begins when we are born. We learn things at different stages of our development to be ready for when we enter adolescence, or the onset of sexual maturity.
Fine, let me restate it. Sexuality is how people understand each other in certain aspects such as male vs female as well as understanding their own bodies and sexual thoughts when they arrive
Masturbation begins when children are very young.
if you saw a boy masturbating, you would probably assume he was abused.
Understanding age appropriate sexual behaviours in children is vital to understanding sexuality in children. Seeing two young children playing naked together does not mean they are doing bad things, they are just curious.
"Just because a character in Harry Potter isn't shown having sex, it doesn't mean they are asexual."
Never said they were. However, Voldy's only issues were in gaining power, defeating death with horcruxes, and eventually killing Harry.
Why would that be the only reason for showing his sociopathy (which also combined with psychopathy)? She showed him, as a baby, not to cry. She wanted to show that someone who was conceived without love (basically Merope raped Tom Sr and mind raped him to stay with her). That false love and inbred family who abused their daughter/sister was what helped to create this ultimate evil
"If you knew anything about child development psychology, you would know that the worst form of child abuse is neglect and absence of family structure."
Rowling showed that as well with Harry
"Notice how Voldy treats his followers. He isn't sociopathic. He is hierarchial."
I will add, like I did above, that he is psychopathic, if not also sociopathic.
"If calling it "sexual maturity" will end this discussion, then let's do that."
I call adolescence the onset of sexual maturity. Sexual maturity is just one step in the sexuality of a person.
"Only adults watching children think rudimentary courtship behaviors constitute "sex"."
Can you explain how this comment in any way was related to my message you quoted? This is so far from what I said that I am confused in your thought process. I have to again express to you that sexuality in no way means sex.
"Which is a small percentage of the lives and social interactions of most people I know."
I didn't say or mean to imply that sexuality was a large part of anyone's life. However, understanding sex differences and one's own sexual feelings and sexual parts of one's own body are vital.
"Not on a daily basis, for most children. For most it is an infrequent physical experimentation"
Masturbation happens in a lot of children as they begin to explore their bodies. It does tend to become less frequent as they find other things better to do. And please don't tell me you are a follower of the Freudian psychological school of thought. Latency simply defines a stage where sexual thoughts do not rule the behaviour, unlike the first three stages of life and the final stage.
"the most common expressive symptoms are extreme withdrawl, bed wetting, fire setting, animal cruelty and sexually acting out their abuse with other children."
The signs can be withdrawal, but it can also be the opposite of being unusually outgoing. Bed wetting is possible as is acting out their abuse in non-age appropriate ways either with other children or their toys. Fire setting and animal cruelty are not anywhere near common symptoms.
"if children are trying to sexually penetrate each other, orally stimulate each other or show persistent (i.e. daily) sexual acting out, it is a sign there is a problem."
Yes, inappropriate behaviours are problematic, but that us why I stated it was important to understand what behaviours are appropriate. As a Pre-K teacher, two of my boys were in the bathroom, one orally stimulating the other. There was nothing that had ever happened at the school that influenced them and nothing was discovered at either of their homes. We never did find out how they discovered that and it may have just been normal curiosity.
"How does that make him asexual?"
Nothing in Voldy's passion dealt with anything of a sexual nature. McGonagall was married. The twins dated (and possibly did more with Flwur's cousins in the bushes after the wedding). Even Bella was married, but her passion was also serving Voldy. We know nothing about Moody. Again, I said people can be asexual, even if they are a sexual being. The two are not mutually exclusive.
"When you previously claimed that Voldemort was a "born sociopath" I thought you meant he was genetically programmed that way. If you want to include the absence of loving parental figures as a source of his "sociopathy" in addition to his orphanage upbringing, I would agree."
I am not saying the lack of loving parental figures as a source of his sociopathy/psychopathy. I am saying that it didn't help to ameliorate those proclivities. Voldy was born the way he was. This is the nature vs nurture argument. Most of the time, there is a combination. In this case, he was born without a conscious and wasn't taught anything about love in his upbringing, especially considering he was such an abnormal baby who rarely cried. Though how much a loving upbringing would have helped I have my doubts.
"Doesn't matter what you add. He doesn't show the characteristics of sociopathy."
Which is why I also added psychopathy, which is similar but different to sociopathy and possibly closer to a description of Voldy.
Bob
I call adolescence the onset of sexual maturity. Sexual maturity is just one step in the sexuality of a person.
"Only adults watching children think rudimentary courtship behaviors constitute "sex"."
Can you explain how this comment in any way was related to my message you quoted? .
Masturbation happens in a lot of children as they begin to explore their bodies. It does tend to become less frequent as they find other things better to do.
As a Pre-K teacher, two of my boys were in the bathroom, one orally stimulating the other. There was nothing that had ever happened at the school that influenced them and nothing was discovered at either of their homes. We never did find out how they discovered that and it may have just been normal curiosity.
The signs can be withdrawal, but it can also be the opposite of being unusually outgoing. Bed wetting is possible as is acting out their abuse in non-age appropriate ways either with other children or their toys. Fire setting and animal cruelty are not anywhere near common symptoms.
"You keep saying children are sexual in their behaviors"
This is an absurd statement and I guess shows you are dificient in reading comprehension. I have never said children are sexual in their behaviour per se. They have curiosities about sexuality, which again, is not spefically sexual. Again, discovering the difference between boys and girls is about sexuality, it is not about sex.
"When you see one child say to another, "We should play", an adult, such as yourself, might put adult motive"
I hate people who attribute adult motives into children and I don't.
"What do you mean by "better things to do"? You have already defined sexuality as the major and most important part of being a human being."
More of your lack of reading comprehension. I have never said sexuality is the major and most important part of a human being. It is an important one, but not of so much importance that you attributed me to say it was. Better things to do means what it means. You say you know about children, you can figure out what other games and toys are more important to them.
"From 10 years experience as a counselor for sexually abused kids in an institutionalized setting I guarantee that what you saw was LEARNED behavior. You simply didn't have the opportunity to talk to the kids in a safe environment where they could speak freely."
What do you know about the situation? Things were investigated and nothing was found untoward within the families. Nothing happened in the preschool for them to learn it either. They did it in the bathroom because that was the only place they were allowed to pull their pants down.
"You continue to make it clear you don't know what you are talking about."
You continue to make it clear you don't know how to comprehend what I write. I also would hesitate to let you near any child of mine.
Bob
This is an absurd statement and I guess shows you are dificient in reading comprehension. I have never said children are sexual in their behaviour per se. They have curiosities about sexuality, which again, is not spefically sexual. Again, discovering the difference between boys and girls is about sexuality, it is not about sex.
I hate people who attribute adult motives into children and I don't.
What do you know about the situation?
Things were investigated and nothing was found untoward within the families.
You continue to make it clear you don't know how to comprehend what I write.
I also would hesitate to let you near any child of mine.
But they aren't adults until they start thinking about sex and start developing the parts needed for sex.
This would seem to be information we are not provided with. Perhaps its very absence says something.
But they aren't adults until they start thinking about sex and start developing the parts needed for sex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a load of crap and you know it. Being an adult is about more than sex. It's about your ability to be self sufficient
That's why there are people in their thirties or forties or beyond who are still essentially children, and there are those who become adults in their early twenties.
The only thing we know about anyone's sexuality in the books is that most of them are straight..The only possible exception to this is Voldemort's mother, who was able to get laid because she used love potions on Tom Riddle Senior.
So you are saying all adults are self-sufficient?
There are people who are self-sufficient in their early teens. Doesn't make them adults.
Nor are non-self-sufficient people in their 30's and 40's considered children.
He gets riled up, after all it was an infant who destroyed him once. It's only natural he should feel threatened by kids and infants alike.
тrυe coυrage ιѕ noт aвoυт ĸnowιng wнen тo тaĸe a lιғe, вυт wнen тo ѕpare one.
Voldemort killed just as many adults as kids, or more.
But yeah, I'd say it's fair to say he had a perverse pleasure in harming children. It likely reminded him of the first time he ever felt power in his life... torturing the other kids at Wool's orphanage.
__
Long ago men competed on a show to date a woman who competed on a show to date Flava Flav.
Voldemort takes a perverse pleasure in killing kids.
At least one person agrees with me.
Interesting, what is his attitude to little girls?
In books he mainly encounters little boys as kids and clearely hates them.
His encounters with little girls are very limited, so it's interesting would he hate them just the same as boys?
Wow. I'm seriously let down.
Does nobody here have a sense of humor?
What do you mean?
shareI mean the first post and subsequent posts by the original poster were clearly jokes, and funny ones at that. But people were responding so seriously and seemingly getting annoyed and actually fighting to prove to the original poster that they are wrong. I find it ridiculous and sad that they can't see the humor and go along with it or have a good laugh and just leave it alone.
shareIt may have started as a joke or not, but then the OP got into defending his comments and even going into other discussions. I will debate others as long as the debate amuses me.
Bob
Pretty sure the defenses of his comments were part of the joke as well. Your point of view sounds like the poster's, debating while it amuses him/her.
shareI see. But I indeed wondered about that thing I asked.
Did Voldemort have different attitudes to kids depending on their sex or he found all of them, any of them, obnoxious and hated them all regardless?
I know this is an old post, but I just read it and realized ... we don't ever see Voldemort around a young girl, do we? I mean, even in the flashback where some kid says "cool costume, Mister" and Voldemort talks about possibly killing him, it's a boy. So who knows?
shareWhen he came back to power I don't think we do. But we do know one of the kids he traumatized at the orphanage was a girl. And he also possessed Ginny for an entire year.
shareThat's true. But Ginny didn't count. In fact, he talked about how boring it was listening to her, and his plan the whole time was to possess and kill her. But she really doesn't count; she wasn't picked by him. It was just her who happened to come into possession of his diary. If it were a boy, or anyone else in the world, the exact same thing would have happened.
share