"Men Are Struggling" To Not Ruin My Day For Once

Wow so many interesting points I've never considered 😍

Hi, do you have an analysis for why you prefer bottom Tom? Most fics have him as a top, but I'm very interested in your perspective ma'am.

well, the short answer is because i want to and because i can.

the longer answer is that i just don't find any of the arguments for why voldemort would never bottom under any circumstances to be as convincing and definitive as their proponents claim them to be.

my issue - to be clear - isn't with people having a preference for reading or writing about him being a top. it's with the fact that him only being a top - and not only that, but him being repulsed or humiliated by the idea of bottoming - is typically presented as such an objective fact that preferring to read or write about him being a bottom provokes responses which range from the simply annoying - "this is out of character!" [any fic in which he consensually shags his prophesied child-enemy is out of character, be serious] - to the genuinely troubling - "it's disgusting! voldemort is a real man and real men don't want anything up their arses!".

obviously - let's be real - a lot of the arguments about why bottom!voldemort is impossible are just typical "slash fandom reinvents gender roles" shit - they essentially boil down to "omg no harry would bottom because he's the girl".

but others do come with more weight behind them. and two of these are:

that the gender norms voldemort was raised with would inculcate in him a big lump of internalised homophobia which would make him see bottoming as feminine, and - in seeing it as feminine - see it as weak, humiliating, dependent, and incompatible with his understanding of control and power. that voldemort would be horrified by the idea of being penetrated, because he would see it as something which polluted or profaned the body he considers to be sacred.

i do think it's possible to argue both of these points robustly, using actual readings of the text rather than just vibes. i've just never found any of these readings compelling.

and the reason why all comes down to this:

"I knew I was different," he whispered to his own quivering fingers. "I knew I was special. Always, I knew there was something." [HBP 13]

he's talking about something specific - how he's always known that he's a wizard - here, of course. but we can also take this statement and use it to think more generally about how he views being perceived as deviant, strange, or wrong by the norms of the society in which he lives.

by which i mean... he's somebody who believes that being different makes him special and that people who try to punish or shame him for his difference are idiots who simply haven't yet worked out that he's superior to them in literally everything he does. he's not someone who perceives being different in a self-flagellating way - he doesn't think there's something wrong with him, he doesn't think that his difference makes him a pathetic or unimpressive person. and he's also not somebody who views being criticised or punished for his difference as something which causes him sorrow or anxiety. it causes him rage - because it inconveniences him [it creates obstacles he has to overcome, although he entirely believes he can overcome them] and because it doesn't recognise his self-conception as the protagonist of reality:

Riddle's reaction to this was most surprising. He leapt from the bed and backed away from Dumbledore, looking furious. "You can't kid me! The asylum, that's where you're from, isn't it? 'Professor,' yes, of course - well, I'm not going, see? That old cat's the one who should be in the asylum. I never did anything to little Amy Benson or Dennis Bishop, and you can ask them, they'll tell you!"   "I am not from the asylum," said Dumbledore patiently. "I am a teacher and, if you will sit down calmly, I shall tell you about Hogwarts. Of course, if you would rather not come to the school, nobody will force you -" "I'd like to see them try," sneered Riddle. "Hogwarts," Dumbledore went on, as though he had not heard Riddle's last words, "is a school for people with special abilities -"   "I'm not mad!" [HBP 13]

you can entertain a very dark reading of this scene - in fact, i have - but it's also possible to entertain a liberating one, and see the child voldemort as someone who has always been proud of his difference and prepared to defend that pride in the face of censure, and who is absolutely delighted to be given the language to define and describe his difference and to be given access to a community of people who are similarly - in his words - special.

all of which is to say... the standard interpretation in fandom seems to be that a queer voldemort would fall somewhere on a spectrum from indifferent to his sexuality to actively ashamed of it.

but i think it's much, much more plausible that he'd actually be proud of it, and for his statement - "i knew i was different... i knew i was special" - to be used as the starting point for how we might imagine him realising that he's queer.

and this is why the "he'd have so much internalised homophobia he'd never bottom" argument always falls flat for me - it rests on an assumption that queer men having to grow past a childhood/teenage fear that there's something wrong with them is the default position. it overlooks the fact that there are many ways for somebody to come to understand their own sexuality.

and that two of those ways are "defiantly" and "spitefully". aka the lord voldemort special.

something which always stands out to me about the canonical voldemort, both when he's a good-looking teenager/young man and a monstrous, serpentine adult, is that - even with all the phallic symbolism which surrounds him [enormous snakes and ultra-powerful wands and so on] - the text presents him as somebody who comes across as fairly effeminate:

he's typically described - as we can see from this excellent analysis from @said-snape-softly - as speaking "softly" or "quietly". when he isn't, he's often "shrill", "shrieking", "screeching", or "screaming".

he has a hair-trigger temper and he's extremely emotionally volatile.

he's typically described as moving in ways which have similarly feminine connotations - he "drifts" and "glides". while the primary doylist reason for this is clearly so the reader associates him with snakes, ghosts, and dementors, it ends up giving him a quality of movement which is fey, rather than powerful and purposeful. indeed, we only ever see him do one thing which requires physical, as well as magical, prowess - duelling. but, like fencing - which is its real-world equivalent - good duellists aren't people who are physically strong or imposing, they're people who are cunning and nimble [and the other men the text emphasises are good at it are snape, flitwick, and harry - with harry's quick reflexes being explicitly given as a reason why [i.e. GoF 34] ]. his ability to fly is a demonstration of his magical power alone, since it allows him to circumvent the need to use a broom, which does appear to require physical strength [hence why the only main characters who aren't fond of using brooms are either women or fat, cowardly little boys like neville...]

building on this, he's often described in ways which make him sound quite physically fragile - he's very thin, he's very pale, he's always cold, every time his heartbeat is described it seems to be irregular and so on.

his reputation in his teens and young adulthood is as a "polite [and] quiet" goody-two-shoes who "showed no sign of outward arrogance or aggression at all" [HBP 17]. i think that point about aggression is really important - it builds on what mrs cole tells dumbledore about it being "very hard to catch him" bullying other orphans [HBP 13]. he's not dudley - or james and sirius - using his physical talents to subdue and control people. he's sneakier... more insidious... indeed, in chamber of secrets, ron explicitly compares him to percy - somebody else the text presents as fairly effete - in order to complain about him "squealing" - aka, running to tell a teacher, like a girl, instead of settling things like a man - on hagrid [CoS 14].

when he's a young man, living alone for the first time, the text thinks it's very important to tell us that he has "slightly longer hair" than he does at school [HBP 20]. "slightly" is obviously the operative word here - i don't think he's strutting into hepzibah smith's house in a twenty-four inch lace-front - but we can certainly imagine him with the sort of greaser or pompadour haircut which was understood in the 1950s as being a bit counter-cultural...

of the five horcruxes which are objects - rather than harry and nagini [who is, of course, female] - three [cup, diadem, locket] originally belonged to a woman and are acquired from a woman, two [cup, locket] are acquired by killing a woman using a stereotypically female murder method [poison], two are connected to voldemort's rage at his mother being disparaged [locket - he's furious to hear hepzibah say that merope must have stolen it, ring - he attacks morfin immediately after morfin calls his mother a "slut"]. and all five of these horcruxes also depend on women to introduce them into the narrative in a way that facilitates their destruction: the diary is given to ginny; dumbledore puts on the ring in order to speak to his sister; the locket is associated both with walburga's grief [it's literally moved from the cave - voldemort's grave for his mother - to the house which is walburga's own tomb!] and with umbridge's performance of femininity; the cup is given to bellatrix [and the text is very clear that both she and voldemort understand it as having only been given to her, rather than to her and rodolphus] and is then destroyed - albeit off-stage - by hermione; and harry is given the tools to acquire the diadem by cho, luna, and mcgonagall, although he has to overcome the obstacles of alecto carrow and helena ravenclaw to get hold of it. harry - of course - also only becomes a horcrux because of a woman - lily's - sacrifice.

his favourite death eaters are a woman and a very feminine-coded man. but - more interestingly - what the text finds unimpressive isn't that he likes bellatrix and snape... it's that he leaves a lot of his dirty work to male minions who are characterised by their brutish strength - people like greyback, hagrid [who he makes carry harry up to hogwarts], rowle, gibbon, amycus carrow and so on. there's the heavy implication in the text that voldemort's preference for leaving the violence to others - as i'm always pointing out, his canonical kill count is really low; most of the murders in the series are done by other death eaters acting on his orders - is something we should see as weak.

the text associates him with this effeminacy - i think it's really important to note, given who jkr is - as a criticism. it's something - much like the text's presentation of him as aromantic, and the fact that the degradation of his looks via the creation of the horcruxes makes him look sexless/eunuch-like - being used to underscore his villainy. he's feminine-coded in a toxic way.

but let's take this in another direction [and let's also return to the actual question you asked me...] and read him as someone who has always had to deal with being perceived as queer by other people, and having that perception be associated with negative assumptions.

he's very easy to imagine as a child/teenager who's the target of ridicule from his fellow orphans/fellow students [for not being sporty, for liking to sit in the library for hours on end coming up with anagrams of his own name, for the way he walks and speaks] which hinges on the idea that his failure to conform to the expected conventions of "proper" masculinity mean that he's not a proper man... and that if he's not a proper man then... he's not straight.

but then we have to come back to the "i knew i was special" point, don't we?

voldemort's belief in his own superiority can - in my view - be used to read him as somebody who would embrace being camp or effeminate or whatever term we want to use, in order both to express his contempt for people who criticise him ["think i'm a messed up little deviant, do you, mrs cole? well, you don't know the half of it!"] and who conform to social norms he thinks are reprehensible ["oh, do purebloods frown upon bottoming, abraxas? well - guess what - so do muggles. do you agree with what muggles think?"] and to humiliate, subjugate, and control them ["you think i'm a faggot, do you...? well, you're right... i'm a faggot who's defeated you in battle and now i'm about to kill you... still feel like a man?"].

while - obviously - appearance/gender presentation has nothing to do with preferred sexual roles - the manliest men on earth can be bottoms! being femme doesn't prevent you topping! - i really do think that voldemort is someone who can be written entirely canon-coherently as thinking that the homophobic perception of bottoming as weak, powerless, or humiliating is complete nonsense, and who would actively flaunt his rejection of this perception as a way to mock people who subscribe to it.

after all, we see him do something similar in canon when it comes to his blood-status and social class. the death eaters - lots of whom are posh pureblood men who conceive of themselves as the most important people in the universe - are made to kneel at the feet of and kiss the robes of and be branded like cattle by and be at the beck and call of someone who's neither pureblood nor posh. there are - as lupin tells us - no wizarding princes... and yet the closest things the wizarding world has to an aristocracy are rolling around on the ground debasing themselves and calling a half-blood orphan "my lord".

voldemort does this to humiliate them. but he also does this to amuse himself - à la logan roy making men who've displeased him play "boar on the floor".

[wormtail being forced to care for him when he's in his half-form at the start of goblet of fire, for example. he's not humiliated in the slightest by his dependence on wormtail... wormtail is humiliated by it, and voldemort finds it hilarious.]

and so i think we can plausibly imagine him also deeply enjoying making his straight, married, "i would die before i let anything near my arse", "i'm not getting changed for quidditch with so-and-so there, he's queer", "i'd disown my son if i found out he let other men fuck him" death eaters grovel for the favour of someone who loves getting railed...

this deeply aligns with how voldemort understands things like power and control - and it's why the argument that he'd only top because he would regard it as the only way of being powerful and controlling never hits for me.

because this also rests on an assumption - that the bottom always understands themselves as the passive partner. i do think the fandom is broadly getting better at recognising that bottoms and submissives are different things [although the bar was on the floor...], but i think there's still a tendency to default to the idea that the two people involved in sex are an active partner and a passive partner, and that the passive partner is - for want of a better term - the receptacle.

the language used around bottoming reinforces this assumption. its voice is passive - the bottom is penetrated, is bred, is fucked, is taken - its verbs are passive too - the top does, the bottom receives.

but the thing is... this is just semantics. and it's a semantic argument directly rooted in misogyny, and the homophobia which stems from and connects to it.

and - since it's just semantics - we can change the language we use at any time to completely reconfigure the assumed power dynamic.

the bottom grants access. the bottom consumes. the bottom takes. the bottom absorbs. the bottom uses. the bottom captures. the bottom detains. the bottom grips. the bottom devours. the bottom permits. the bottom destroys.

the top is the person who's passive - who receives permission, who is granted access, who is consumed, who is absorbed, who is captured. the top is the person having their life-force leached from them. they're just a toy, just a piece of meat. they literally don't matter.

and the text already uses this sort of language - the language of consumption and capture and permission to cross thresholds and so on - to talk about voldemort's attitude to power, magic, and the body.

he drains the blood of unicorns; he uses up the life-force of the people and animals he possesses; he grows stronger by consuming ginny's secrets; he is restored to his body by taking from his father, wormtail, and harry; he takes the money dumbledore offers without feeling the need to thank him or regard it as a gift; he offers up gifts to people he wants to use for his own gain; he "doesn't march up to people's houses and bang on their front doors" [OotP 6]; he hoards and conceals precious things; his soul is kept safe by being encased by the horcruxes; his locket is guarded by something which has to be drunk, which destroys anyone who assumes they can simply take it without his permission; he "would be glad to see anything miss hepzibah shows me" [HBP 20] and then seizes her secrets and uses them to bring about her doom; his descent from slytherin is proven by his control of the threshold of the chamber of secrets; he places himself and his talents at dumbledore's disposal, "i am yours to command" [HBP 20]; he controls snakes and they do his bidding; he drains the ministry of its secrets; he controls the dementors, who devour joy; augustus rookwoord "has lord voldemort's gratitude... i shall need all the information you can give me" [OotP 26]; he is the greatest legilimens - that is to say, he is excellent at pulling other people's secrets into his own mind and using them as he wishes - the world has ever seen; he has seen ron's heart and it is his; his followers live to serve him...

his followers are called death eaters, not death fuckers.

and so it's inarguable, really, that he'd have a legion of service tops under his command...

So, last night I got to thinking what I want Snape in my interpretation to look like, so please take this offering with my thought process

And after that I also made a rough sketch for a fun idea with a late night sneaking around that I l've got, so here's that as well

"Detention, Potter."

It always pains me to see Remus so far away from the group in the Order of The Phoenix photo. I mean what close friends suspect their friend of betraying them? Probably those who aren’t actually close.

Honestly, people talk about Peter and Remus as if they were on the same level as James and Sirius, when in reality Peter acted like a cheerleader whom James and Sirius treated like a damn pet, and maybe James considered Remus somewhat, but Sirius clearly didn’t give a damn—I mean, he was willing to let a classmate be killed by him with everything that entails, and then he was the first to distrust him during the war and think he might be a traitor. The supposed friendship between those four wasn’t as idyllic as their fans try to paint it. It’s clear that James and Sirius were the leaders and the ones who had the real friendship; the other two were just complements.

Do you think James and Sirius bullied Severus frequently? Since we only have one memory, perhaps it was especially brutal that day because of the Shack incident? Or maybe this was simply the norm for their interactions. The fact that everyone around laughed tells me this type of thing did happen at least once before. I can't imagine most people not being shocked if this were the first time Sirius and James had treated Severus so harshly.

Severus clearly had a bad reputation (although not because of anything bad he did). The fact that he immediately knew what was coming the moment he heard their voices in the memory - and was described as twitchy - suggests he had adapted a defensive stance in this environment. This implies the bullying must have been somewhat frequent. But what did it actually look like?

James and Sirius clearly felt entitled to bully him, even just to get rid of their boredom. But were these actions common, or was it particularly brutal that day due to the Shack incident and other circumstances?

Yes, James and Sirius frequently bullied Severus, and the narrative makes this quite clear through multiple hints. SWM scene in is the only one Rowling shows us directly, but it is not an isolated incident; there is enough context in the books to infer that the bullying was constant:

-When Harry sees Snape’s memory, the narration emphasizes that Severus tenses up and assumes a defensive stance the moment he hears James and Sirius’s voices, indicating that he is already used to being their target. If this kind of attack were an exception, his initial reaction would be one of surprise rather than resignation.

-The other students do not seem shocked or outraged; in fact, many laugh or just watch without intervening. This suggests that this behavior was normal and recurring. If James and Sirius had attacked someone randomly or without precedent, the reaction would likely have been different.

-Sirius mentions in PoA that "it was just something between Snape and us." Moreover, in OotP Lupin—who tends to be more impartial—acknowledges that James was "a bit of an idiot" and that his behavior towards Snape was unjustifiable. This confirms that the bullying was not a one-time thing.

-The mere fact that James called Snape "Snivellus" suggests a pattern of constant mockery. Offensive nicknames typically arise in contexts of systematic bullying, not from a single episode.

-Snape and the Marauders did not just argue in class or have an intellectual rivalry; their relationship was marked by animosity that went beyond academics. This is evident in the fact that Sirius once tried to lure Snape into the Shrieking Shack to be killed by a werewolf. Such an extreme act does not occur in the context of occasional teasing but rather in a sustained hostility dynamic.

-The fact that Sirius and James decided to attack him simply because they were bored suggests that this was a habitual occurrence. The difference may have been the brutality of the attack itself, but the underlying attitude remained the same.

Actually both Harry and Snape had full rights to turn evil ngl

"Harry also had a shitty childhood and was bullied, but he didn’t turn out like Snape."

True, because:

Harry found refuge at Hogwarts, where he felt welcomed, supported, and protected from the very beginning. Severus did not.

Harry had adult figures who protected him, cared about him (Hagrid, the Weasleys, Dumbledore, Lupin, Sirius...), and showed him affection over the years. Severus did not.

Harry had two friends who would have torn apart anyone who dared to strip him in front of the entire school. Severus did not.

Harry and Malfoy had a rivalry because they were on equal footing. Severus was bullied by a group of guys who attacked him together and were far above him socially and economically.

Harry was rich—disgustingly rich, to be exact. Severus was disgustingly poor.

Harry felt loved from the moment Hagrid came for him just after his 11th birthday. Severus never felt loved in his entire damn life.

Harry was favored by Dumbledore and other school staff on multiple occasions. Dumbledore forced Severus to stay silent about an attempted murder against him.

Harry had choices. Severus had nothing.

Ohhh Harry's reflexes must be insane! And I totally agree with your arguments, although I'm not sure how cardiovascular endurance plays a part, sorry I'm a bit dumb xd and oh yes grip strength must be crazy too since he must be able to stay on the broom while it's flying super fast. That takes real physical strength in the arms and stomach muscles. His stamina is probably also high level.

Thanks for your imput ☺️

describing harry as "an insanely athletic man" while all he does is sit on a flying broom is crazy work

Falling in love with Harrydore is a curse because there’s almost no food for meeee 😭😭

Not “Only my reading of canon is correct” or “Interpretations are subjective and all valid” but a secret third thing, “More than one interpretation can be valid but there’s a reason your English teacher had you cite quotes and examples in your papers, you have to have a strong argument that your interpretation is actually supported by the text or it is just wrong and I’m fine with telling you it’s wrong, actually.”

Still, to appease the more radical purebloods and future death eaters, Snape must have internalized some of that anti muggleborn propaganda that Voldemort was spewing and the hatred his Slytherin friends were spreading. Although I'm aware that majority of the wizarding society held some superiority over muggles and I even believe many of the so called good purebloods (like the Potters) were condecensing to muggleborns sometimes, tho unknowingly, there is a difference between quiet prejudice with no ill intent and the radical bigoted beliefs that some of the wizards held. The death eaters clearly believed that muggles were human sickness and muggleborns were no better and Snape was around that rhetoric every day and later became part of its circle. I always just saw Snape as a selfish person who tried to gain more power and a sense of belonging and he was insecure enough to believe many of the bigoted beliefs that was part of Voldemort propaganda or just the overall hardcore prejudice. He called muggleborns mudbloods even when he was Lily's friend. I always imagine him as someone who would dismiss Lily's feelings about slytherins and even gaslight her about Voldemort's propaganda and her worry behind anti muggleborns rhetoric. Like he downplayed it while participating in it at the same time. We can see this with any real life prejudice existing in our world. Many people who are homophobic try to create reasons for disliking gay people and when gay people complain about their hatred, they just downplay it, make it seem like its not that big of a deal or just continue with their excuses. I can see Snape being like that. And even if his reason for joining death eaters had nothing to do with violence and hatred, he became part of it anyway and being part of something like that influences the way you think especially if you wanted to be part of it. He also became part of it during the time the violence was already known and that certainly did not stop him so he must have had some prejudices or highly ignorant beliefs towards muggleborns.

It seems like you're very determined to apply a strictly logical, real-world mindset to a fictional, fantasy world. I get that imagining a Severus Snape with deeply ingrained, extremist, anti-Muggle biases would make more sense in a real-world context and may feel more "realistic". But that wasn’t the point of Snape’s character. This is a story, and not everything needs to follow real-world logic exactly. Even in reality, not everything unfolds as expected. Snape’s character is, in many ways, an exception—he surprises audiences frequently and makes choices that don’t always align with his past actions or logical expectations. Some of these contradictions seem deliberate; Snape has to exist in this gray area for the story to hold its depth and ambiguity.

So, while Snape does associate with future Death Eaters and, at times, seems to justify their actions, that doesn’t mean he fully internalized all of their views or intended to act exactly like them. Lily did a similar thing, in a way: she mentions that she often tried to excuse Snape’s behavior or overlook his mistakes. But we wouldn’t conclude that Lily agreed with or had adopted Snape’s beliefs. Another example is Peter Pettigrew, who is almost Snape’s opposite. Peter was sorted into Gryffindor, the very house that upholds Dumbledore’s ideals and values. He surrounded himself with people destined to be future Order members, yet look at what he became. Peter didn’t just reject his friends’ beliefs; he betrayed them completely and was loyal to Voldemort for years, even plotting his friends' deaths and stayed loyal to Voldemort for years afterward, to the point of risking Harry’s life for Voldemort's return.

I don’t deny that Snape held biases and some prejudiced views, whether as a teenager or a young Death Eater. But, as I mentioned in my previous post, there’s no solid evidence that he was an extreme racist, a torturer of Muggle-borns, or someone who delighted in the idea of “cleansing” the wizarding world.

As a personal opinion, I also feel that comparing real-world homophobia to anti-Muggle sentiment in the wizarding world isn’t quite the same. Muggles and wizards have a long, tumultuous history, and at one point, Muggles persecuted wizards to the extent that they had to hide their world to ensure safety and survival. This isn’t a distant past—Hagrid even mentions in Philosopher’s Stone that Muggles would likely exploit wizards if they discovered their powers. So, while homophobia is irrational and baseless, anti-Muggle sentiments in the wizarding world, however wrong, are somewhat rooted in historical fear and survival. It’s no surprise, then, that the wizarding society hasn’t fully let go of its anti-Muggle biases, even after the wars.

The fact that someone like JK Rowling created a character like Harry Potter completely baffles me

Harry Potter who was outraged when the magical community wouldn't accept a werewolf at Hogwarts

Harry Potter who regularly had tea with the half giant groundskeeper

Harry Potter who at 12 years old freed a house elf from his abusive master and then five years later insisted on giving that same house elf a proper burial

Harry has his flaws, but what always stood out to me about him was how tolerant and accepting he was. There were plenty of people he didn't like, but that was always because of who they were as a person. It's even made a point in the series that he maintained relationships with groups who were not usually friendly with wizards (probably because of past mistreatment) like ghosts and centaurs. So, how such a bigoted and close-minded person created him is beyond me.