I hope you have the time of your life

lesbians

autistic women being sarcastic

black and brown women who are loud and assertive

feminists

teenage girls

10 year old tomboys

discussions and appreciation of female biology

Being a jerk is not the same thing as being a fascist. Being a bully is not the same thing as being a fascist. Not agreeing with your opinion is not the same thing as being fascist. I’ll be the first to admit James Potter was a jerk, but I’ll also remind you that he was a teenager, and teenagers are dumb. I could go into the ins and outs of a developing brain to prove that point, but I won’t. Instead, let’s focus on the word itself.

Fascism is a political ideology with very specific traits:

- Ultranationalism: Extreme devotion to a specific nation or ethnic group, often accompanied by xenophobia (like when the Nazis promoted the supposed superiority of the Aryan race.)

- Militarism: Glorification of war and violence as a means to achieve national goal (like in Imperial Japan, where citizens were taught to die for the Emperor to push territorial expansion.)

- Authoritarian Leadership: Rejection of democracy in favor of one leader or a small ruling elite controlling the country.

- Suppression of Dissent: Silencing or punishing anyone who disagrees with the ruling power through censorship, intimidation, imprisonment, or even execution.

- Mythic Past: Idealizing a “pure” historical era and promising to recreate it.

- State-Controlled Economy: The government owns or heavily regulates most companies and directs the economy toward its own goals.

Now, let’s look at James Potter shall we?

- Ultranationalism: James never expressed extreme nationalist views or ethnic superiority. He didn’t bully Snape for being a half-blood, in fact, he defended Lily when she was called a “mudblood" by Snape. His issues with Snape were personal, rooted in academic rivalry and jealousy over Lily’s friendship. And let’s be honest: if we’re talking about blood purity obsession, that’s Slytherin House territory. There is no racism here. James didn't think he was superior, he acted like a superior because of a hurt ego.

- Militarism: At what point did James ever glorify war? When he graduated, he joined a secret resistance to end the war. He wasn’t trying to convince people to fight for a pure race or expand his own power. That’s Voldemort’s job description.

- Authoritarianism: James wasn’t trying to run Hogwarts, the wizarding world, or anything else. He and Sirius led the Marauders, a group of pranksters, but that’s social mischief, not political power. Fred and George Weasley actually outdid the Marauders in pranks, and no one calls them fascists (even though they also bullied Slytherins). Because they weren't. They were self centered jerks. That's not a war crime.

- Suppression of Dissent: James had no power to censor anyone or crush political opposition. He was just a kid being immature. That’s bad behavior, not state repression.

- Mythic Past: Again: No. James wasn’t trying to restore a “golden age of magic” or create propaganda campaigns. He was open-minded about integrating Muggle-borns into society, the opposite of fascist ultranationalism in the wizarding world.

- Economic Control: Yes, James was wealthy and he did rub it on Vernon Dursley's nose, but that’s not the same as controlling other people’s money or the economy. He didn't go about deciding how people should spend their money or limitating bank transactions for petty reasons.

James’s worst behavior at Hogwarts (bullying, hexing Snape for fun) came from being privileged, competitive, and immature. That makes him a rich, spoiled teenager who sometimes used his popularity to push others around. That’s personal dominance, not an ideological movement.

Being a jerk is about ego, insecurity, and social dynamics. Being a fascist is about imposing a rigid, nationalist, authoritarian system on society. James was an annoying, immature jerk who took longer to grow out of that phase than he should have, the product of elderly parents who spoiled him rotten not a fascist bent on climbing the ranks to dominate the world.

Let me guess now that I point out these fallacies, you might respond with an ad hominem attack on me rather than addressing the argument itself, right? Classic.

As previously explained. James Potter did not sexually abuse anyone. This is nowhere in canon. Honestly, the lengths people go to hate a fictional character...

Now James Potter is a jerk, I’ll die on this hill, he’s self-centered and immature, as the story clearly shows it in a negative light. The beauty of complex characters is seeing them as flawed humans rather than flat, black-and-white good-or-bad stereotypes. That’s what we get in Harry Potter, much like in Greek mythology, where gods aren’t purely good or bad they’re all deeply human.

Your claim is troubling on its own, but what’s worse is accusing people who like James Potter (probably directed to me) of supporting sexual abuse. Here’s some advice: that kind of accusation can be considered libel and defamation, especially without any proof. If someone took this to court, platforms like Tumblr could be legally required to disclose your personal information for making serious false accusations since you'd be persecuted. Things can get ugly if you cross the wrong person on the wrong day, so I’d strongly recommend you think twice before using rhetoric like this in the future.

You’re referring to Snape’s worst memory, but here’s the problem: you got it wrong. James did not strip Snape in public. To qualify as stripping, he would have had to physically remove all of Snape’s clothes, leaving him completely bare, or naked. Again stripping is taking someone's clothes and leaving them naked. Which did not happen. The prank was cruel, and I agree with that. However, the prank consisted of flipping Severus upside down. Now, because Snape was wearing robes, gravity caused the robes to fall briefly, exposing his underwear. The intention was to mock him by flipping him upside down, not to expose his underwear. The exposure was an unintended side effect. On the books this scene is not shown in a good light, and that’s intentional. It serves to teach Harry who his father really was and to shed light on Snape’s past. Up to that point, Snape was seen as a bitter, cruel man who bullied a minor for no apparent reason.

But this is not sexual abuse by law. Sexual abuse is legally defined as coercing someone to participate unwillingly in a sexual act by means of power or violence. Had James physically stripped Snape in front of others, then yes, that would be sexual assault. He would be not only touching him inappropriately but exposing his naked body without consent in front of people by using power and violence. But that’s not what happened.

Does this make the prank any less bad? Absolutely not. Humiliating someone in public, or in private, is never acceptable. It shows immaturity, pettiness, and lack of self-control, and it should not be applauded. It should be punished. That’s why it’s plainly included in the books. In 2003, when bullying culture was very prevalent, this passage was craftily put there to discourage bullying by showing both the consequences (Snape’s bitterness) and the wrongness of such behavior (why Harry reacts so strongly after seeing the memory). But again as bad as it was this is not sexual abuse.

A man suporting a man being a sexual abuser

To make it abundantly clear where I stand, I agree with everything this man has previously said, and I'd like to make my own points, if you don't mind.

First of all, I'd like to point out that sexual abuse is a very serious crime that happens to many people, and using its name for malicious intent or to spread harm, as you are currently doing, is disrespectful and detrimental to the real life people who have experienced this. Spreading these ideas of yours can be extremely triggering to victims, and it could also lead to a change in perspective about how sexual abuse is treated in the future. I ask that you consider how your words can be harmful before posting things like this on the Internet for everyone to see.

Secondly, sexual abuse can be defined as "when someone is forced, pressured or tricked into taking part in any kind of sexual activity with another person." (Src: Childine website) Or, if this definition js not satisfactory for you, below I have included some examples.

Sexual assault takes many forms, including but not limited to: Physical: Acts like kissing, rape, attempted rape, or coercing someone into non-consensual sexual activity. Sexual Harassment: Unwanted sexual comments, jokes, or sharing explicit images or videos. Sexual Exploitation: Forcing or manipulating someone into sexual activity for financial gain or status, such as in prostitution. Incest: Sexual contact between closely related individuals where marriage is legally prohibited, e.g., between uncles/aunts and nieces/nephews.

Src: Criminal Injuries Helpline UK

I am not suggesting that stripping someone against their will is never a form of sexual assault, but I do think that this instance was not an example of this. So, what was the point of providing these definitions? To educate you, of course. Because these are real things that happen to real people, and you being so caught up in what you believe a fictional character might have done (which isn't even canon) is, quite frankly, shameful, inconsiderate and apathetic.

Snape was not stripped. I bring you a quote directly from the book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (which, by the way, I received years ago, before finding out about JKR's transphobia): "Snape had directed his wand straight at James; there was a flash of light and a gash appeared on James's face, spattering his robes with blood. James whirled about: a second flash of light later, Snape was hanging upside-down in the air, his robes falling over his head to reveal skinny, pallid legs and a pair of greying underpants."

As you can see, James had stopped bullying Snape (and I won't deny that it was bullying), when Snape attacked him once he turned his back. James then retaliated in a split-second decision, dangling him upside-down. The revelation of his underwear was purely coincidental. James retaliated after being attacked and injured. That is not sexual abuse. A court of law might even rule it as self-defense. Get your facts right.

Personally, I don't deny that what James did in that instance was wrong. But he's a teenager. He was showing off. He probably got a dopamine rush from a crowd supporting him. Besides, the scene isn't there to say that James was a bad person. It's there to show that Harry really doesn't know anything about his parents. It's there to combat bullying, and to prove that people can mature.

You’re not a feminist if you excuse sexual abuser

You’re just a fangirl fucked up by the patriarchy

I don’t debate about sexual abuse

You only recognize serious crimes as crimes.

But above all, you only do it to justify abusers.

Many victims of sexual abuse feel insulted and wronged by the glorification of James Potter.

Many victims of bullying feel wronged by the glorification of James Potter.

You don’t care about those victims.

By justifying an abuser, you spit on their trauma.

Don’t ask for what you don’t give.

You like a character who is a sexual abuser.

Accept it.

We’re talking about James, who was the abuser.

Using the future actions of abuse victims is a way of invalidating their experiences.

You’re invalidating the experience of a sexual abuse victim just because of what they would become years later.

Snape never sexually abused anyone, James did.

Snape was bullied, James wasn’t.

You keep justifying an abuser who triggers many victims of various kinds of abuse.

Your fascination with a fascist abuser is impressive.

Impressively terrible.

I'm also not invalidating Snape's experience. Yes, he was bullied as a child, but that still doesn't make it any more right for him to bully his students in turn. It may be a product of the trauma, but it's still wrong, and all I ask is that you acknowledge that.

And you talk about invalidating SA victims, but then you go and do the same to me? You're honestly such a hypocrite, and you clearly can't be reasoned with. You keep saying the same drabble over and over again, so I won't be replying after this. I have a life to get back to, and you clearly won't be convinced, so I wish you good luck and farewell.

Being a jerk is not the same thing as being a fascist. Being a bully is not the same thing as being a fascist. Not agreeing with your opinion is not the same thing as being fascist. I’ll be the first to admit James Potter was a jerk, but I’ll also remind you that he was a teenager, and teenagers are dumb. I could go into the ins and outs of a developing brain to prove that point, but I won’t. Instead, let’s focus on the word itself.

Fascism is a political ideology with very specific traits:

- Ultranationalism: Extreme devotion to a specific nation or ethnic group, often accompanied by xenophobia (like when the Nazis promoted the supposed superiority of the Aryan race.)

- Militarism: Glorification of war and violence as a means to achieve national goal (like in Imperial Japan, where citizens were taught to die for the Emperor to push territorial expansion.)

- Authoritarian Leadership: Rejection of democracy in favor of one leader or a small ruling elite controlling the country.

- Suppression of Dissent: Silencing or punishing anyone who disagrees with the ruling power through censorship, intimidation, imprisonment, or even execution.

- Mythic Past: Idealizing a “pure” historical era and promising to recreate it.

- State-Controlled Economy: The government owns or heavily regulates most companies and directs the economy toward its own goals.

Now, let’s look at James Potter shall we?

- Ultranationalism: James never expressed extreme nationalist views or ethnic superiority. He didn’t bully Snape for being a half-blood, in fact, he defended Lily when she was called a “mudblood" by Snape. His issues with Snape were personal, rooted in academic rivalry and jealousy over Lily’s friendship. And let’s be honest: if we’re talking about blood purity obsession, that’s Slytherin House territory. There is no racism here. James didn't think he was superior, he acted like a superior because of a hurt ego.

- Militarism: At what point did James ever glorify war? When he graduated, he joined a secret resistance to end the war. He wasn’t trying to convince people to fight for a pure race or expand his own power. That’s Voldemort’s job description.

- Authoritarianism: James wasn’t trying to run Hogwarts, the wizarding world, or anything else. He and Sirius led the Marauders, a group of pranksters, but that’s social mischief, not political power. Fred and George Weasley actually outdid the Marauders in pranks, and no one calls them fascists (even though they also bullied Slytherins). Because they weren't. They were self centered jerks. That's not a war crime.

- Suppression of Dissent: James had no power to censor anyone or crush political opposition. He was just a kid being immature. That’s bad behavior, not state repression.

- Mythic Past: Again: No. James wasn’t trying to restore a “golden age of magic” or create propaganda campaigns. He was open-minded about integrating Muggle-borns into society, the opposite of fascist ultranationalism in the wizarding world.

- Economic Control: Yes, James was wealthy and he did rub it on Vernon Dursley's nose, but that’s not the same as controlling other people’s money or the economy. He didn't go about deciding how people should spend their money or limitating bank transactions for petty reasons.

James’s worst behavior at Hogwarts (bullying, hexing Snape for fun) came from being privileged, competitive, and immature. That makes him a rich, spoiled teenager who sometimes used his popularity to push others around. That’s personal dominance, not an ideological movement.

Being a jerk is about ego, insecurity, and social dynamics. Being a fascist is about imposing a rigid, nationalist, authoritarian system on society. James was an annoying, immature jerk who took longer to grow out of that phase than he should have, the product of elderly parents who spoiled him rotten not a fascist bent on climbing the ranks to dominate the world.

Let me guess now that I point out these fallacies, you might respond with an ad hominem attack on me rather than addressing the argument itself, right? Classic.

As previously explained. James Potter did not sexually abuse anyone. This is nowhere in canon. Honestly, the lengths people go to hate a fictional character...

Now James Potter is a jerk, I’ll die on this hill, he’s self-centered and immature, as the story clearly shows it in a negative light. The beauty of complex characters is seeing them as flawed humans rather than flat, black-and-white good-or-bad stereotypes. That’s what we get in Harry Potter, much like in Greek mythology, where gods aren’t purely good or bad they’re all deeply human.

Your claim is troubling on its own, but what’s worse is accusing people who like James Potter (probably directed to me) of supporting sexual abuse. Here’s some advice: that kind of accusation can be considered libel and defamation, especially without any proof. If someone took this to court, platforms like Tumblr could be legally required to disclose your personal information for making serious false accusations since you'd be persecuted. Things can get ugly if you cross the wrong person on the wrong day, so I’d strongly recommend you think twice before using rhetoric like this in the future.

You’re referring to Snape’s worst memory, but here’s the problem: you got it wrong. James did not strip Snape in public. To qualify as stripping, he would have had to physically remove all of Snape’s clothes, leaving him completely bare, or naked. Again stripping is taking someone's clothes and leaving them naked. Which did not happen. The prank was cruel, and I agree with that. However, the prank consisted of flipping Severus upside down. Now, because Snape was wearing robes, gravity caused the robes to fall briefly, exposing his underwear. The intention was to mock him by flipping him upside down, not to expose his underwear. The exposure was an unintended side effect. On the books this scene is not shown in a good light, and that’s intentional. It serves to teach Harry who his father really was and to shed light on Snape’s past. Up to that point, Snape was seen as a bitter, cruel man who bullied a minor for no apparent reason.

But this is not sexual abuse by law. Sexual abuse is legally defined as coercing someone to participate unwillingly in a sexual act by means of power or violence. Had James physically stripped Snape in front of others, then yes, that would be sexual assault. He would be not only touching him inappropriately but exposing his naked body without consent in front of people by using power and violence. But that’s not what happened.

Does this make the prank any less bad? Absolutely not. Humiliating someone in public, or in private, is never acceptable. It shows immaturity, pettiness, and lack of self-control, and it should not be applauded. It should be punished. That’s why it’s plainly included in the books. In 2003, when bullying culture was very prevalent, this passage was craftily put there to discourage bullying by showing both the consequences (Snape’s bitterness) and the wrongness of such behavior (why Harry reacts so strongly after seeing the memory). But again as bad as it was this is not sexual abuse.

A man suporting a man being a sexual abuser

To make it abundantly clear where I stand, I agree with everything this man has previously said, and I'd like to make my own points, if you don't mind.

First of all, I'd like to point out that sexual abuse is a very serious crime that happens to many people, and using its name for malicious intent or to spread harm, as you are currently doing, is disrespectful and detrimental to the real life people who have experienced this. Spreading these ideas of yours can be extremely triggering to victims, and it could also lead to a change in perspective about how sexual abuse is treated in the future. I ask that you consider how your words can be harmful before posting things like this on the Internet for everyone to see.

Secondly, sexual abuse can be defined as "when someone is forced, pressured or tricked into taking part in any kind of sexual activity with another person." (Src: Childine website) Or, if this definition js not satisfactory for you, below I have included some examples.

Sexual assault takes many forms, including but not limited to: Physical: Acts like kissing, rape, attempted rape, or coercing someone into non-consensual sexual activity. Sexual Harassment: Unwanted sexual comments, jokes, or sharing explicit images or videos. Sexual Exploitation: Forcing or manipulating someone into sexual activity for financial gain or status, such as in prostitution. Incest: Sexual contact between closely related individuals where marriage is legally prohibited, e.g., between uncles/aunts and nieces/nephews.

Src: Criminal Injuries Helpline UK

I am not suggesting that stripping someone against their will is never a form of sexual assault, but I do think that this instance was not an example of this. So, what was the point of providing these definitions? To educate you, of course. Because these are real things that happen to real people, and you being so caught up in what you believe a fictional character might have done (which isn't even canon) is, quite frankly, shameful, inconsiderate and apathetic.

Snape was not stripped. I bring you a quote directly from the book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (which, by the way, I received years ago, before finding out about JKR's transphobia): "Snape had directed his wand straight at James; there was a flash of light and a gash appeared on James's face, spattering his robes with blood. James whirled about: a second flash of light later, Snape was hanging upside-down in the air, his robes falling over his head to reveal skinny, pallid legs and a pair of greying underpants."

As you can see, James had stopped bullying Snape (and I won't deny that it was bullying), when Snape attacked him once he turned his back. James then retaliated in a split-second decision, dangling him upside-down. The revelation of his underwear was purely coincidental. James retaliated after being attacked and injured. That is not sexual abuse. A court of law might even rule it as self-defense. Get your facts right.

Personally, I don't deny that what James did in that instance was wrong. But he's a teenager. He was showing off. He probably got a dopamine rush from a crowd supporting him. Besides, the scene isn't there to say that James was a bad person. It's there to show that Harry really doesn't know anything about his parents. It's there to combat bullying, and to prove that people can mature.

You’re not a feminist if you excuse sexual abuser

You’re just a fangirl fucked up by the patriarchy

I don’t debate about sexual abuse

You only recognize serious crimes as crimes.

But above all, you only do it to justify abusers.

Many victims of sexual abuse feel insulted and wronged by the glorification of James Potter.

Many victims of bullying feel wronged by the glorification of James Potter.

You don’t care about those victims.

By justifying an abuser, you spit on their trauma.

Don’t ask for what you don’t give.

You like a character who is a sexual abuser.

Accept it.

Being a jerk is not the same thing as being a fascist. Being a bully is not the same thing as being a fascist. Not agreeing with your opinion is not the same thing as being fascist. I’ll be the first to admit James Potter was a jerk, but I’ll also remind you that he was a teenager, and teenagers are dumb. I could go into the ins and outs of a developing brain to prove that point, but I won’t. Instead, let’s focus on the word itself.

Fascism is a political ideology with very specific traits:

- Ultranationalism: Extreme devotion to a specific nation or ethnic group, often accompanied by xenophobia (like when the Nazis promoted the supposed superiority of the Aryan race.)

- Militarism: Glorification of war and violence as a means to achieve national goal (like in Imperial Japan, where citizens were taught to die for the Emperor to push territorial expansion.)

- Authoritarian Leadership: Rejection of democracy in favor of one leader or a small ruling elite controlling the country.

- Suppression of Dissent: Silencing or punishing anyone who disagrees with the ruling power through censorship, intimidation, imprisonment, or even execution.

- Mythic Past: Idealizing a “pure” historical era and promising to recreate it.

- State-Controlled Economy: The government owns or heavily regulates most companies and directs the economy toward its own goals.

Now, let’s look at James Potter shall we?

- Ultranationalism: James never expressed extreme nationalist views or ethnic superiority. He didn’t bully Snape for being a half-blood, in fact, he defended Lily when she was called a “mudblood" by Snape. His issues with Snape were personal, rooted in academic rivalry and jealousy over Lily’s friendship. And let’s be honest: if we’re talking about blood purity obsession, that’s Slytherin House territory. There is no racism here. James didn't think he was superior, he acted like a superior because of a hurt ego.

- Militarism: At what point did James ever glorify war? When he graduated, he joined a secret resistance to end the war. He wasn’t trying to convince people to fight for a pure race or expand his own power. That’s Voldemort’s job description.

- Authoritarianism: James wasn’t trying to run Hogwarts, the wizarding world, or anything else. He and Sirius led the Marauders, a group of pranksters, but that’s social mischief, not political power. Fred and George Weasley actually outdid the Marauders in pranks, and no one calls them fascists (even though they also bullied Slytherins). Because they weren't. They were self centered jerks. That's not a war crime.

- Suppression of Dissent: James had no power to censor anyone or crush political opposition. He was just a kid being immature. That’s bad behavior, not state repression.

- Mythic Past: Again: No. James wasn’t trying to restore a “golden age of magic” or create propaganda campaigns. He was open-minded about integrating Muggle-borns into society, the opposite of fascist ultranationalism in the wizarding world.

- Economic Control: Yes, James was wealthy and he did rub it on Vernon Dursley's nose, but that’s not the same as controlling other people’s money or the economy. He didn't go about deciding how people should spend their money or limitating bank transactions for petty reasons.

James’s worst behavior at Hogwarts (bullying, hexing Snape for fun) came from being privileged, competitive, and immature. That makes him a rich, spoiled teenager who sometimes used his popularity to push others around. That’s personal dominance, not an ideological movement.

Being a jerk is about ego, insecurity, and social dynamics. Being a fascist is about imposing a rigid, nationalist, authoritarian system on society. James was an annoying, immature jerk who took longer to grow out of that phase than he should have, the product of elderly parents who spoiled him rotten not a fascist bent on climbing the ranks to dominate the world.

Let me guess now that I point out these fallacies, you might respond with an ad hominem attack on me rather than addressing the argument itself, right? Classic.

As previously explained. James Potter did not sexually abuse anyone. This is nowhere in canon. Honestly, the lengths people go to hate a fictional character...

Now James Potter is a jerk, I’ll die on this hill, he’s self-centered and immature, as the story clearly shows it in a negative light. The beauty of complex characters is seeing them as flawed humans rather than flat, black-and-white good-or-bad stereotypes. That’s what we get in Harry Potter, much like in Greek mythology, where gods aren’t purely good or bad they’re all deeply human.

Your claim is troubling on its own, but what’s worse is accusing people who like James Potter (probably directed to me) of supporting sexual abuse. Here’s some advice: that kind of accusation can be considered libel and defamation, especially without any proof. If someone took this to court, platforms like Tumblr could be legally required to disclose your personal information for making serious false accusations since you'd be persecuted. Things can get ugly if you cross the wrong person on the wrong day, so I’d strongly recommend you think twice before using rhetoric like this in the future.

You’re referring to Snape’s worst memory, but here’s the problem: you got it wrong. James did not strip Snape in public. To qualify as stripping, he would have had to physically remove all of Snape’s clothes, leaving him completely bare, or naked. Again stripping is taking someone's clothes and leaving them naked. Which did not happen. The prank was cruel, and I agree with that. However, the prank consisted of flipping Severus upside down. Now, because Snape was wearing robes, gravity caused the robes to fall briefly, exposing his underwear. The intention was to mock him by flipping him upside down, not to expose his underwear. The exposure was an unintended side effect. On the books this scene is not shown in a good light, and that’s intentional. It serves to teach Harry who his father really was and to shed light on Snape’s past. Up to that point, Snape was seen as a bitter, cruel man who bullied a minor for no apparent reason.

But this is not sexual abuse by law. Sexual abuse is legally defined as coercing someone to participate unwillingly in a sexual act by means of power or violence. Had James physically stripped Snape in front of others, then yes, that would be sexual assault. He would be not only touching him inappropriately but exposing his naked body without consent in front of people by using power and violence. But that’s not what happened.

Does this make the prank any less bad? Absolutely not. Humiliating someone in public, or in private, is never acceptable. It shows immaturity, pettiness, and lack of self-control, and it should not be applauded. It should be punished. That’s why it’s plainly included in the books. In 2003, when bullying culture was very prevalent, this passage was craftily put there to discourage bullying by showing both the consequences (Snape’s bitterness) and the wrongness of such behavior (why Harry reacts so strongly after seeing the memory). But again as bad as it was this is not sexual abuse.

A man suporting a man being a sexual abuser

To make it abundantly clear where I stand, I agree with everything this man has previously said, and I'd like to make my own points, if you don't mind.

First of all, I'd like to point out that sexual abuse is a very serious crime that happens to many people, and using its name for malicious intent or to spread harm, as you are currently doing, is disrespectful and detrimental to the real life people who have experienced this. Spreading these ideas of yours can be extremely triggering to victims, and it could also lead to a change in perspective about how sexual abuse is treated in the future. I ask that you consider how your words can be harmful before posting things like this on the Internet for everyone to see.

Secondly, sexual abuse can be defined as "when someone is forced, pressured or tricked into taking part in any kind of sexual activity with another person." (Src: Childine website) Or, if this definition js not satisfactory for you, below I have included some examples.

Sexual assault takes many forms, including but not limited to: Physical: Acts like kissing, rape, attempted rape, or coercing someone into non-consensual sexual activity. Sexual Harassment: Unwanted sexual comments, jokes, or sharing explicit images or videos. Sexual Exploitation: Forcing or manipulating someone into sexual activity for financial gain or status, such as in prostitution. Incest: Sexual contact between closely related individuals where marriage is legally prohibited, e.g., between uncles/aunts and nieces/nephews.

Src: Criminal Injuries Helpline UK

I am not suggesting that stripping someone against their will is never a form of sexual assault, but I do think that this instance was not an example of this. So, what was the point of providing these definitions? To educate you, of course. Because these are real things that happen to real people, and you being so caught up in what you believe a fictional character might have done (which isn't even canon) is, quite frankly, shameful, inconsiderate and apathetic.

Snape was not stripped. I bring you a quote directly from the book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (which, by the way, I received years ago, before finding out about JKR's transphobia): "Snape had directed his wand straight at James; there was a flash of light and a gash appeared on James's face, spattering his robes with blood. James whirled about: a second flash of light later, Snape was hanging upside-down in the air, his robes falling over his head to reveal skinny, pallid legs and a pair of greying underpants."

As you can see, James had stopped bullying Snape (and I won't deny that it was bullying), when Snape attacked him once he turned his back. James then retaliated in a split-second decision, dangling him upside-down. The revelation of his underwear was purely coincidental. James retaliated after being attacked and injured. That is not sexual abuse. A court of law might even rule it as self-defense. Get your facts right.

Personally, I don't deny that what James did in that instance was wrong. But he's a teenager. He was showing off. He probably got a dopamine rush from a crowd supporting him. Besides, the scene isn't there to say that James was a bad person. It's there to show that Harry really doesn't know anything about his parents. It's there to combat bullying, and to prove that people can mature.

You’re not a feminist if you excuse sexual abuser

You’re just a fangirl fucked up by the patriarchy

I don’t debate about sexual abuse

You only recognize serious crimes as crimes.

But above all, you only do it to justify abusers.

Being a jerk is not the same thing as being a fascist. Being a bully is not the same thing as being a fascist. Not agreeing with your opinion is not the same thing as being fascist. I’ll be the first to admit James Potter was a jerk, but I’ll also remind you that he was a teenager, and teenagers are dumb. I could go into the ins and outs of a developing brain to prove that point, but I won’t. Instead, let’s focus on the word itself.

Fascism is a political ideology with very specific traits:

- Ultranationalism: Extreme devotion to a specific nation or ethnic group, often accompanied by xenophobia (like when the Nazis promoted the supposed superiority of the Aryan race.)

- Militarism: Glorification of war and violence as a means to achieve national goal (like in Imperial Japan, where citizens were taught to die for the Emperor to push territorial expansion.)

- Authoritarian Leadership: Rejection of democracy in favor of one leader or a small ruling elite controlling the country.

- Suppression of Dissent: Silencing or punishing anyone who disagrees with the ruling power through censorship, intimidation, imprisonment, or even execution.

- Mythic Past: Idealizing a “pure” historical era and promising to recreate it.

- State-Controlled Economy: The government owns or heavily regulates most companies and directs the economy toward its own goals.

Now, let’s look at James Potter shall we?

- Ultranationalism: James never expressed extreme nationalist views or ethnic superiority. He didn’t bully Snape for being a half-blood, in fact, he defended Lily when she was called a “mudblood" by Snape. His issues with Snape were personal, rooted in academic rivalry and jealousy over Lily’s friendship. And let’s be honest: if we’re talking about blood purity obsession, that’s Slytherin House territory. There is no racism here. James didn't think he was superior, he acted like a superior because of a hurt ego.

- Militarism: At what point did James ever glorify war? When he graduated, he joined a secret resistance to end the war. He wasn’t trying to convince people to fight for a pure race or expand his own power. That’s Voldemort’s job description.

- Authoritarianism: James wasn’t trying to run Hogwarts, the wizarding world, or anything else. He and Sirius led the Marauders, a group of pranksters, but that’s social mischief, not political power. Fred and George Weasley actually outdid the Marauders in pranks, and no one calls them fascists (even though they also bullied Slytherins). Because they weren't. They were self centered jerks. That's not a war crime.

- Suppression of Dissent: James had no power to censor anyone or crush political opposition. He was just a kid being immature. That’s bad behavior, not state repression.

- Mythic Past: Again: No. James wasn’t trying to restore a “golden age of magic” or create propaganda campaigns. He was open-minded about integrating Muggle-borns into society, the opposite of fascist ultranationalism in the wizarding world.

- Economic Control: Yes, James was wealthy and he did rub it on Vernon Dursley's nose, but that’s not the same as controlling other people’s money or the economy. He didn't go about deciding how people should spend their money or limitating bank transactions for petty reasons.

James’s worst behavior at Hogwarts (bullying, hexing Snape for fun) came from being privileged, competitive, and immature. That makes him a rich, spoiled teenager who sometimes used his popularity to push others around. That’s personal dominance, not an ideological movement.

Being a jerk is about ego, insecurity, and social dynamics. Being a fascist is about imposing a rigid, nationalist, authoritarian system on society. James was an annoying, immature jerk who took longer to grow out of that phase than he should have, the product of elderly parents who spoiled him rotten not a fascist bent on climbing the ranks to dominate the world.

Let me guess now that I point out these fallacies, you might respond with an ad hominem attack on me rather than addressing the argument itself, right? Classic.

As previously explained. James Potter did not sexually abuse anyone. This is nowhere in canon. Honestly, the lengths people go to hate a fictional character...

Now James Potter is a jerk, I’ll die on this hill, he’s self-centered and immature, as the story clearly shows it in a negative light. The beauty of complex characters is seeing them as flawed humans rather than flat, black-and-white good-or-bad stereotypes. That’s what we get in Harry Potter, much like in Greek mythology, where gods aren’t purely good or bad they’re all deeply human.

Your claim is troubling on its own, but what’s worse is accusing people who like James Potter (probably directed to me) of supporting sexual abuse. Here’s some advice: that kind of accusation can be considered libel and defamation, especially without any proof. If someone took this to court, platforms like Tumblr could be legally required to disclose your personal information for making serious false accusations since you'd be persecuted. Things can get ugly if you cross the wrong person on the wrong day, so I’d strongly recommend you think twice before using rhetoric like this in the future.

You’re referring to Snape’s worst memory, but here’s the problem: you got it wrong. James did not strip Snape in public. To qualify as stripping, he would have had to physically remove all of Snape’s clothes, leaving him completely bare, or naked. Again stripping is taking someone's clothes and leaving them naked. Which did not happen. The prank was cruel, and I agree with that. However, the prank consisted of flipping Severus upside down. Now, because Snape was wearing robes, gravity caused the robes to fall briefly, exposing his underwear. The intention was to mock him by flipping him upside down, not to expose his underwear. The exposure was an unintended side effect. On the books this scene is not shown in a good light, and that’s intentional. It serves to teach Harry who his father really was and to shed light on Snape’s past. Up to that point, Snape was seen as a bitter, cruel man who bullied a minor for no apparent reason.

But this is not sexual abuse by law. Sexual abuse is legally defined as coercing someone to participate unwillingly in a sexual act by means of power or violence. Had James physically stripped Snape in front of others, then yes, that would be sexual assault. He would be not only touching him inappropriately but exposing his naked body without consent in front of people by using power and violence. But that’s not what happened.

Does this make the prank any less bad? Absolutely not. Humiliating someone in public, or in private, is never acceptable. It shows immaturity, pettiness, and lack of self-control, and it should not be applauded. It should be punished. That’s why it’s plainly included in the books. In 2003, when bullying culture was very prevalent, this passage was craftily put there to discourage bullying by showing both the consequences (Snape’s bitterness) and the wrongness of such behavior (why Harry reacts so strongly after seeing the memory). But again as bad as it was this is not sexual abuse.

A man suporting a man being a sexual abuser

To make it abundantly clear where I stand, I agree with everything this man has previously said, and I'd like to make my own points, if you don't mind.

First of all, I'd like to point out that sexual abuse is a very serious crime that happens to many people, and using its name for malicious intent or to spread harm, as you are currently doing, is disrespectful and detrimental to the real life people who have experienced this. Spreading these ideas of yours can be extremely triggering to victims, and it could also lead to a change in perspective about how sexual abuse is treated in the future. I ask that you consider how your words can be harmful before posting things like this on the Internet for everyone to see.

Secondly, sexual abuse can be defined as "when someone is forced, pressured or tricked into taking part in any kind of sexual activity with another person." (Src: Childine website) Or, if this definition js not satisfactory for you, below I have included some examples.

Sexual assault takes many forms, including but not limited to: Physical: Acts like kissing, rape, attempted rape, or coercing someone into non-consensual sexual activity. Sexual Harassment: Unwanted sexual comments, jokes, or sharing explicit images or videos. Sexual Exploitation: Forcing or manipulating someone into sexual activity for financial gain or status, such as in prostitution. Incest: Sexual contact between closely related individuals where marriage is legally prohibited, e.g., between uncles/aunts and nieces/nephews.

Src: Criminal Injuries Helpline UK

I am not suggesting that stripping someone against their will is never a form of sexual assault, but I do think that this instance was not an example of this. So, what was the point of providing these definitions? To educate you, of course. Because these are real things that happen to real people, and you being so caught up in what you believe a fictional character might have done (which isn't even canon) is, quite frankly, shameful, inconsiderate and apathetic.

Snape was not stripped. I bring you a quote directly from the book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (which, by the way, I received years ago, before finding out about JKR's transphobia): "Snape had directed his wand straight at James; there was a flash of light and a gash appeared on James's face, spattering his robes with blood. James whirled about: a second flash of light later, Snape was hanging upside-down in the air, his robes falling over his head to reveal skinny, pallid legs and a pair of greying underpants."

As you can see, James had stopped bullying Snape (and I won't deny that it was bullying), when Snape attacked him once he turned his back. James then retaliated in a split-second decision, dangling him upside-down. The revelation of his underwear was purely coincidental. James retaliated after being attacked and injured. That is not sexual abuse. A court of law might even rule it as self-defense. Get your facts right.

Personally, I don't deny that what James did in that instance was wrong. But he's a teenager. He was showing off. He probably got a dopamine rush from a crowd supporting him. Besides, the scene isn't there to say that James was a bad person. It's there to show that Harry really doesn't know anything about his parents. It's there to combat bullying, and to prove that people can mature.

You’re not a feminist if you excuse sexual abuser

You’re just a fangirl fucked up by the patriarchy

I don’t debate about sexual abuse

Being a jerk is not the same thing as being a fascist. Being a bully is not the same thing as being a fascist. Not agreeing with your opinion is not the same thing as being fascist. I’ll be the first to admit James Potter was a jerk, but I’ll also remind you that he was a teenager, and teenagers are dumb. I could go into the ins and outs of a developing brain to prove that point, but I won’t. Instead, let’s focus on the word itself.

Fascism is a political ideology with very specific traits:

- Ultranationalism: Extreme devotion to a specific nation or ethnic group, often accompanied by xenophobia (like when the Nazis promoted the supposed superiority of the Aryan race.)

- Militarism: Glorification of war and violence as a means to achieve national goal (like in Imperial Japan, where citizens were taught to die for the Emperor to push territorial expansion.)

- Authoritarian Leadership: Rejection of democracy in favor of one leader or a small ruling elite controlling the country.

- Suppression of Dissent: Silencing or punishing anyone who disagrees with the ruling power through censorship, intimidation, imprisonment, or even execution.

- Mythic Past: Idealizing a “pure” historical era and promising to recreate it.

- State-Controlled Economy: The government owns or heavily regulates most companies and directs the economy toward its own goals.

Now, let’s look at James Potter shall we?

- Ultranationalism: James never expressed extreme nationalist views or ethnic superiority. He didn’t bully Snape for being a half-blood, in fact, he defended Lily when she was called a “mudblood" by Snape. His issues with Snape were personal, rooted in academic rivalry and jealousy over Lily’s friendship. And let’s be honest: if we’re talking about blood purity obsession, that’s Slytherin House territory. There is no racism here. James didn't think he was superior, he acted like a superior because of a hurt ego.

- Militarism: At what point did James ever glorify war? When he graduated, he joined a secret resistance to end the war. He wasn’t trying to convince people to fight for a pure race or expand his own power. That’s Voldemort’s job description.

- Authoritarianism: James wasn’t trying to run Hogwarts, the wizarding world, or anything else. He and Sirius led the Marauders, a group of pranksters, but that’s social mischief, not political power. Fred and George Weasley actually outdid the Marauders in pranks, and no one calls them fascists (even though they also bullied Slytherins). Because they weren't. They were self centered jerks. That's not a war crime.

- Suppression of Dissent: James had no power to censor anyone or crush political opposition. He was just a kid being immature. That’s bad behavior, not state repression.

- Mythic Past: Again: No. James wasn’t trying to restore a “golden age of magic” or create propaganda campaigns. He was open-minded about integrating Muggle-borns into society, the opposite of fascist ultranationalism in the wizarding world.

- Economic Control: Yes, James was wealthy and he did rub it on Vernon Dursley's nose, but that’s not the same as controlling other people’s money or the economy. He didn't go about deciding how people should spend their money or limitating bank transactions for petty reasons.

James’s worst behavior at Hogwarts (bullying, hexing Snape for fun) came from being privileged, competitive, and immature. That makes him a rich, spoiled teenager who sometimes used his popularity to push others around. That’s personal dominance, not an ideological movement.

Being a jerk is about ego, insecurity, and social dynamics. Being a fascist is about imposing a rigid, nationalist, authoritarian system on society. James was an annoying, immature jerk who took longer to grow out of that phase than he should have, the product of elderly parents who spoiled him rotten not a fascist bent on climbing the ranks to dominate the world.

Let me guess now that I point out these fallacies, you might respond with an ad hominem attack on me rather than addressing the argument itself, right? Classic.

As previously explained. James Potter did not sexually abuse anyone. This is nowhere in canon. Honestly, the lengths people go to hate a fictional character...

Now James Potter is a jerk, I’ll die on this hill, he’s self-centered and immature, as the story clearly shows it in a negative light. The beauty of complex characters is seeing them as flawed humans rather than flat, black-and-white good-or-bad stereotypes. That’s what we get in Harry Potter, much like in Greek mythology, where gods aren’t purely good or bad they’re all deeply human.

Your claim is troubling on its own, but what’s worse is accusing people who like James Potter (probably directed to me) of supporting sexual abuse. Here’s some advice: that kind of accusation can be considered libel and defamation, especially without any proof. If someone took this to court, platforms like Tumblr could be legally required to disclose your personal information for making serious false accusations since you'd be persecuted. Things can get ugly if you cross the wrong person on the wrong day, so I’d strongly recommend you think twice before using rhetoric like this in the future.

You’re referring to Snape’s worst memory, but here’s the problem: you got it wrong. James did not strip Snape in public. To qualify as stripping, he would have had to physically remove all of Snape’s clothes, leaving him completely bare, or naked. Again stripping is taking someone's clothes and leaving them naked. Which did not happen. The prank was cruel, and I agree with that. However, the prank consisted of flipping Severus upside down. Now, because Snape was wearing robes, gravity caused the robes to fall briefly, exposing his underwear. The intention was to mock him by flipping him upside down, not to expose his underwear. The exposure was an unintended side effect. On the books this scene is not shown in a good light, and that’s intentional. It serves to teach Harry who his father really was and to shed light on Snape’s past. Up to that point, Snape was seen as a bitter, cruel man who bullied a minor for no apparent reason.

But this is not sexual abuse by law. Sexual abuse is legally defined as coercing someone to participate unwillingly in a sexual act by means of power or violence. Had James physically stripped Snape in front of others, then yes, that would be sexual assault. He would be not only touching him inappropriately but exposing his naked body without consent in front of people by using power and violence. But that’s not what happened.

Does this make the prank any less bad? Absolutely not. Humiliating someone in public, or in private, is never acceptable. It shows immaturity, pettiness, and lack of self-control, and it should not be applauded. It should be punished. That’s why it’s plainly included in the books. In 2003, when bullying culture was very prevalent, this passage was craftily put there to discourage bullying by showing both the consequences (Snape’s bitterness) and the wrongness of such behavior (why Harry reacts so strongly after seeing the memory). But again as bad as it was this is not sexual abuse.

A man suporting a man being a sexual abuser

To make it abundantly clear where I stand, I agree with everything this man has previously said, and I'd like to make my own points, if you don't mind.

First of all, I'd like to point out that sexual abuse is a very serious crime that happens to many people, and using its name for malicious intent or to spread harm, as you are currently doing, is disrespectful and detrimental to the real life people who have experienced this. Spreading these ideas of yours can be extremely triggering to victims, and it could also lead to a change in perspective about how sexual abuse is treated in the future. I ask that you consider how your words can be harmful before posting things like this on the Internet for everyone to see.

Secondly, sexual abuse can be defined as "when someone is forced, pressured or tricked into taking part in any kind of sexual activity with another person." (Src: Childine website) Or, if this definition js not satisfactory for you, below I have included some examples.

Sexual assault takes many forms, including but not limited to: Physical: Acts like kissing, rape, attempted rape, or coercing someone into non-consensual sexual activity. Sexual Harassment: Unwanted sexual comments, jokes, or sharing explicit images or videos. Sexual Exploitation: Forcing or manipulating someone into sexual activity for financial gain or status, such as in prostitution. Incest: Sexual contact between closely related individuals where marriage is legally prohibited, e.g., between uncles/aunts and nieces/nephews.

Src: Criminal Injuries Helpline UK

I am not suggesting that stripping someone against their will is never a form of sexual assault, but I do think that this instance was not an example of this. So, what was the point of providing these definitions? To educate you, of course. Because these are real things that happen to real people, and you being so caught up in what you believe a fictional character might have done (which isn't even canon) is, quite frankly, shameful, inconsiderate and apathetic.

Snape was not stripped. I bring you a quote directly from the book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (which, by the way, I received years ago, before finding out about JKR's transphobia): "Snape had directed his wand straight at James; there was a flash of light and a gash appeared on James's face, spattering his robes with blood. James whirled about: a second flash of light later, Snape was hanging upside-down in the air, his robes falling over his head to reveal skinny, pallid legs and a pair of greying underpants."

As you can see, James had stopped bullying Snape (and I won't deny that it was bullying), when Snape attacked him once he turned his back. James then retaliated in a split-second decision, dangling him upside-down. The revelation of his underwear was purely coincidental. James retaliated after being attacked and injured. That is not sexual abuse. A court of law might even rule it as self-defense. Get your facts right.

Personally, I don't deny that what James did in that instance was wrong. But he's a teenager. He was showing off. He probably got a dopamine rush from a crowd supporting him. Besides, the scene isn't there to say that James was a bad person. It's there to show that Harry really doesn't know anything about his parents. It's there to combat bullying, and to prove that people can mature.