#hptmr

Even if he’d be performing intimacy, his reputation has always leaned more toward being the quiet, charming type rather than loud or socially dominant — which can even play into undertones of weaponized submission (and now it’s more about dynamic than just sexual position).

Position and sexual role aren't the same thing! Look at the stupidity I have to deal with in my inbox. They've already sent me over nine asks circling back to the same topic just because I refuse to treat a gay ship through a straight-filtered lens.

Alright. I will set this straight if you really want my opinion. So, sorry, but Voldemort couldn't "dominate" Harry when he was a baby, or when he was eleven, or twelve (we all know what happened in CoS). Not even when he literally tied Harry up or invaded his mind. I'm logically incapable of comprehending where this idea that Harry would be easily uwu dominated comes from. Really, this is the same boy who resisted the Imperius Curse at fourteen!

Now here's some funny thought: if it was a reversed situation — if Harry were the Dark Lord, or if he would gone down that path, maybe with Tom as his target from birth — do you honestly think Harry wouldn't have prioritized his goal and kept emotions out of the way? Think about it.

That canonical contrast between them is fascinating. Harry has always been more emotionally stoic. I find it amusing that some people take Voldemort's intensity and dramatic peformance and just translate that into suave dominance (so aesthetic!). Right, everyone has their tastes. But then, I also wonder if you've actually considered Harry's personality, or if you had to completely rewrite him just to make that dynamic work. Or maybe, Voldemort is just another vessel for that 'I want a dom dark lord for my darkness-core aesthetic, and, well, Lord Voldemort kinda fits, right? He's already the looks! And...and..and he's a lord!'