Hogwarts Exposed/Headscratchers

""Jamie, it didn't take a brain surgeon to put two and two together. First I saw that plastic bag from Cap D'agde. Then there was that day you were so preoccupied with Quidditch tryouts that you sort of forgot I was here when you got out of the shower and just tossed the towel in the laundry. You must have strolled around the room five minutes before you realized you were nude. I bet you must have said I'm sorry fifty times. What really clinched it was noticing that full coverage tan of yours.""
 * How exactly does Amanda figure out Jamie's a nudist after catching her walking around naked for five minutes in a room that is, for lack of a better word, her bedroom?
 * They explained that. Between the lack of Jamie caring she was nude and her lack of tanlines, she figured it out.
 * That doesn't fully explain it. This troper knew plenty of non-nudist girls who were fine with wandering around in locker rooms and dressing rooms with virtually nothing on. And a lack of tanlines doesn't instantly mean someone's a nudist.
 * Not instantly, but it's a good jumping off point. Remember, it wasn't a locker room or dressing room, it was the dorms. Jamie didn't try to cover herself up and has a full body tan, combined with being nude in the dorms. It's a logical conclusion. Here, I'll give the exposition from the fic:


 * If she was nude in the dorms while she knew other people were around, this troper could see that. It's just that she thought she was alone in the dorms. Some people are perfectly comfortable doing things like walking around naked when they don't think they're being watched. It just seems like a rather large leap in logic, to see someone seemingly comfortable naked when they're alone in their bedroom and seeing that they have a full tan and immediately think "They're a nudist" and not "They like to go tanning and are more relaxed in private".
 * The bag, however, was from a nudist resort. If she knew that, it's pretty logical to assume she's a nudist. It would be like if you had a bunch of bags from Gamestop. It's logical to assume you're a gamer.
 * Or, as with most people, you would assume that she's merely been to Cape D'Gade. There are plenty of people who vacation at D'Gade who AREN'T nudists, you know.
 * How about the Easy Evangelism in this series? Jamie gets Harry and Hermione to convert to her nudist lifestyle within chapters of her adoption by them. And remember, these two are ostensibly her own professors that she's bullying...
 * On that note, why is it that (at least according to the plot device mirror) the sole deciding factor in whether Harry and Hermione have a perfect or miserable future is determined by whether they become nudists or not?
 * Ever hear of "You step on a butterfly in the past, Hitler wins World War 2?". Same thing. Many time travel-related things use it. The idea that something so major could have far reaching changes isn't exactly that big.
 * Yes, but since when has a single lifestyle choice determined the entire outcome of a relationship?
 * Well, it's a really big change. It causes alot of things in the story. So it's logical to assume things could have gone much, much differently otherwise. The second fic would have gone all kinds of different.
 * Except that there really is no point in the story where one could argue that not being nudists would lead down a road to them being miserable. Not to mention that Half-Blood Prince has Firenze outright state that minute things like Paravati's talk about getting burned is pretty much bupkis. In his words, such things are as trivial to the nature of the universe and the future as the scurrying of ants. This troper is fairly certain that being a nudist would fall under the category of "trivial things".
 * Not to mention the fact that all Harry and Hermione's nudism does in the series is basically give Harry a reason to do nothing but drool whenever he thinks about Hermione.
 * I would disagree on it being "trivial". The second fic on has a huge amount of things that only happen because of it.
 * You mean the numerous ways in which Harry does nothing but drool at the sight of his naked wife? Yeah, not trivial at all.
 * Yeah, and the problems with the Board of Directors, the court case for Timmy, the vacations and things that happened on them, how they interacted with their adopted children and more. So trivial.
 * The problem with the Board of Directors stemmed from Amanda being pregnant. The court case for Timmy stemmed from Malfoy wanting custody and using Ron's lycanthropy as a grounds for declaring him an unfit legal guardian. The only significant thing this troper recalls from their nudist vacations is Hermione getting those pictures taken, and that was an Idiot Plot which would never have happened if the girls had respected Hermione and actually told her the charm wore off as soon as they noticed. And their interactions with the children really aren't significant, unless you count the Unfortunate Implications of those nude tickling sessions.
 * Their argument in the court case for Timmy, however, made the jury turn against Draco's lawyer. The only reason this happened is because of their nudism. Had the court sided with Draco, Sam and Ron's relationship could fall apart, Ginny and Ron wouldn't get along, Ron may possibly blame Harry and Hermione, ruining their friendship and more. The vacations helped them grow as a family, and bond. Without that bonding, things could have gone much differently. Their interactions with the children really are significant, as if they didn't get along, their family would be much less happy.
 * But their being nudists is still irrelevant to whether or not Ron is a suitable guardian for Timmy. If anything, saying that Ron is best friends with a guy who gets naked with underage girls and tickles them, risking touching their genitals and legally committing sexual assault ought to make their case look worse. Considering that the girls constantly talk about how they know nudism isn't for everyone, there's no reason why they couldn't have vacationed to and bonded just as well in non-nudist places. And they could interact with their children just fine with their clothes on.
 * But the kids wouldn't have been happy. That would have made a MAJOR difference (for example, Emily and them might have never bonded).
 * And that is a good thing?
 * If a child can only be happy and bond with a parental figure when said figure is naked, then the child probably needs serious therapy.
 * Them not bonding is bad, if that's what you're asking.
 * If by "their vacations helped them grow as a family", you mean Jamie downright forced Harry and Hermione to have sex in front of them and the nudist lifestyle that they practically FORCED on their "parents" wound up nearly getting them into deep trouble with the authorities...yeah, they bonded.


 * Why is Ginny wearing a revealing dress considered to be a bad thing in a fic where running around with nothing on at all is the best thing anyone can do?
 * Neil seemed to try to go for something where it's not so much the revealing clothes, but the intent behind them. That is, he seemed to be trying to say that the nudist Sues were alright because they weren't doing it to bother or seduce anyone. Ginny, on the other hand, was wearing the dress to try to impress Harry, hence Hermione's slut shaming. Of course, the idea is rather hard to pick up on when the nudists constantly ignore the fact that they're bother other people, as well as how Hermione wears a nearly topless dress and Harry goes endlessly on about how hot she is in it...


 * So, why does the Ministry monitor under-15s' hymens, while not monitoring anything on the boys? And why is the cut-off year 15? I would think that an Orwellian state would most be afraid around the point teenagers are seriously doing such activities, if you know what I mean. And finally, why the heck does the Ministry have that in the first place? What possible use is there for it?
 * This is explained. They don't monitor hymens, they modified the DNA of everyone hundreds of years ago to alert when the woman has sex under age 15. As for why the law exists, that was explained, too. It's a really old law from a time where women's rights were really far off. It was to prevent women from being "soiled".
 * And the fact that they haven't done anything to correct this isn't a problem how?
 * A few things. First, the magical world is far behind the muggle world in technology- how do they even know about or have the means to manipulate DNA? Second, why is the cut-off year 15? Shouldn't the cut-off date for such a law be only after the witch has married, and only with her husband? And if it's so easy to manipulate an entire population, then why can't the Ministry extend that to "known Death Eaters using dark arts"?
 * I am not an anthropologist. I cannot tell you what a culture vastly different from our own, even today, was thinking 500 years ago. It would kinda derail the fic if they went into a history of the wizarding world mid-fic, and then that would be the complaint here, that he derailed the fic for pointless information.
 * Mindless exposition would be better than what we usually got. Besides, once again that in such a setting, even 500 years ago, this would make absolutely no sense. Like I said, if they have the capability to somehow rewrite DNA to allow them to police women, why would they make the cut-off year 15 and not when she is married and only with her husband? That wouldn't require any more explanation, wouldn't be half as ridiculous, and would actually make a lot more sense, historically.
 * Fine, if you want me to guess, the men would complain. They wanted to be able to get laid alot. Makes sense to me. And for how they did it? This is the easiest thing to explain ever. A Wizard Did It.
 * How would it be pointless if it's relevant to the scene? It might have been badly handled, but there'd be a reason for it to be there.
 * A Wizard Did It can only go so far, my friend. If you recall, One More Day involved copious amounts of A Wizard Did It. That didn't keep that series from being laden with plot canyons and illogical occurrences, now did it?
 * And A Wizard Did It doesn't work with Magic A Is Magic A with such a scenario. Rowling had specific rules set down, and one of them was not DNA manipulation or easy control of the population- once again, if the Ministry can do this, and if it's so easy as "A Wizard Did It", then why don't they use it on known dark wizards? And magic can't simply rewrite one's DNA to allow tracking- the DNA in wizards and witches is probably even more resilient than muggles, not to mention that DNA is a string of chemicals that would not be able to report a woman having sex under fifteen to the government. Finally, the cut-off date. For a more prudish time, why is it only 14 and under? If they're so worried about women being soiled, than they should've had this warning disabled after marriage, and only to the man they've married. For an Orwellian society, that makes far more sense.
 * My point is that it's backstory. We don't need to explain how everything works everywhere. Let's just say they discovered DNA through some magical means and used a really powerful spell. As for why the date? Well, the age of consent in real life is about as arbitrary (it varies from state to state in the US, with 18 being how it is in California, but many places, like New York (16, if you're wondering) being lower. Why not until they're married? The Ministry would have been run by guys. They would have wanted to be able to get laid as often and with as many women as possible.
 * Then why make the law in the first place?
 * Because they thought that below 15 was too young?
 * On another note: What would happen if their hymen was knocked off by some other means than sex? In real life, it's not unheard of to lose it in certain sports like horseback riding. It seems like it would be possible to lose in a Quidditch match.
 * Already explained. It's the act itself, not the breaking of the hymen that triggers it.
 * So what's their trigger to know such a thing, then?
 * The insertion of a penis into the vagina.
 * Then how was Alex using a spell to try and remove Emily's hymen supposed to be a loophole? Not to mention that DNA can't do that at all.


 * New Headscratcher: Where did Amanda and Tony go for the other half of the fics?
 * I brought that up myself on the main page (for Tony). Amanda was likely in the background, as the main cast changed from Jamie, Jamie's friends, Harry, Hermione and Caitlin to the Potter family and Kim. Tony? Fuck if I know.
 * Amanda still shows up occasionally. She just became a more minor character as time went on. Tony? Fuck if I know.
 * The last I remember of Amanda was her ending up with pedophile Roger (he thought twelve-year-old Emily was hot at twenty, he is a pedophile, I won't even call him an ephebephile) and moving in with him. Makes me feel worried for her child. :(
 * O_O Thank you for that Fridge Horror. Reminds me of something else, actually...
 * 8 Technically, he's both. Also, Amanda is legal. Like, way older than Lolita legal. Like, legal in the Wizarding World and New York State. If you're talking about the baby, well, ok, yeah, that's kinda worrying. Though, he hasn't actually harmed a minor yet, so there is hope for him having self control.
 * At least in the sporking, people were worried about a Lolita-style situation occurring with the baby and not Amanda. On that note, did Tony just fall of the face of the earth when Amanda hooked up with Roger?
 * No, he fell off the face of the Earth at the start of the third fic.


 * When Harry proposed to Hermione, and earlier in her conversation with Jamie, it's mentioned that she'd been wanting that for a long time. Why, then, did it never occur to her to take the initiative and ask him herself? I'm not necessarily saying that she would have, although I believe she would, but surely the idea that she might would at least cross her mind at some point.
 * I imagine that either the author didn't think of it (most people don't think of the woman proposing) or she was worried Harry might be offended.


 * If (as she keeps claiming) nudity has nothing to do with sex, why did Jamie try to pull Harry by stripping off?
 * Because it all depends on context. Nudity alone is not sexual. Nudity alone with someone while telling them why you want to fuck them is. For a Firefly comparison, it's the difference between River getting out of the box and Saffron in Mal's bed.
 * Even so, someone who didn't automatically associate nudity with sex would be less likely to go for that particular method of seduction over the countless other options.
 * Unless they know the other person does.
 * At which point that makes them a manipulative, selfish bitch whom is inconsiderate of the other person's feelings...


 * How was Matt a "controlling douchetard" for wanting Caitlin to wear pants? And if it's wrong for Matt to control Caitlin that way, why isn't it wrong for Sam to control what Ron wears and for Emily to control what Kim wears?
 * It's wrong because he ordered his girlfriend around as if she were his pet because of his own jealousy.
 * And this excuses Sam and Emily how?
 * I saw how Sam acted differently than you did, and as for Emily, she was trying to help. She's 11. You can't expect her to make completely correct choices and think everything though. Plus, Kim came to like being nude. So the end result was positive, so the steps that led them there don't matter (in my opinion, if the total output of your actions is a positive result, it doesn't matter if the input was negative).
 * What in the HELL did Emily help by bullying Kim into nudism besides come off like one of the worst Mary Sues ever written? And how did you "see how Sam acted" differently? She bullied Ron into nudism as well? Hell, when he objected, he was said to be channeling the "prudish, controlling" Molly Weasley! And Kim only came to like being nude in the end because she was FORCED to be nude, multiple times over, by that pretentious bitch Emily, and when you're forced to do something your mind subconsciously adjusts to it, much like how a slavemaster broke slaves back in pre-Civil War America or even in modern-day Africa, where slavery is STILL practiced.
 * Plus, Emily, as stated before by me, was only forcing Kim into nudity to fix a vote in her favor. That's not an eleven-year-old's way of helping, that's a manipulative and completely selfish sue using her spineless, lesbian Slytherin friend's insecurities for her (the sue's) own benefit. Kim didn't even want to go naked, and the scene just after she was nearly raped and decided to adopt nudism just screamed "this girl needs therapy and Emily has probably warped her mind" to me.


 * When the adopted siblings thirteen-year-old Caitlin and twelve-year-old Emily began having sex with each other, why were their parents concerned only about whether they were lesbians? Especially given Caitlin's history of sexual abuse and the fic canon that sex below fifteen is illegal even if undetected, surely they should have been taken to counseling at the least.


 * Further on that note, why does the canonically law-abiding Hermione help fifteen-year-old Caitlin plan to statutorily rape Caitlin's thirteen-year-old boyfriend on the supposed logic that if she doesn't the children will probably do it in a broom closet anyway?
 * Open-Minded Parent and Chickification.


 * Why was Kim placed in Slytherin? She's not a pure blood, she's not ambitious at all, she didn't even want to go into Slytherin, and she has no cunning whatsoever until one moment in the fourth fic. Really, the only reason she exists is to be manipulated by Emily into doing what she wants, partially because she lacks a spine.
 * Who knows? Maybe Kim's latent cunning and ambition spotted by the Sorting Hat was stomped out by Emily...


 * Why are Jamie and Emily capable of delivering eloquent monologues on the level of Barack Obama, despite being fifteen and ten, respectively, in the first fanfic?


 * Back to