Only Remus Is Acceptable, Although He's Also A Little Bitch. But James, Sirius And Peter Can Choke On

Fleur is hotter

I hate when Sirius Black is not the most attractive man in the room. I'm sorry Remus, who? James, who? Regulus, who? Barty, who? Get out of here. It's Sirius of Troy, girl.

Zoro fascinates me as a character because like. He's insane. This man does things on a daily basis that scare me. And yet somehow I get the feeling he's the most stable person on the strawhat crew, at least where I'm at. Like Luffy is his own entire ball of wax I'm not even gonna touch, Sanji has every mental illness and his only recourse is to flirt, Nami copes with severe trauma by looking as cute as possible and being the ship's resident loan shark, Usopp can't deal with reality so he just makes it up, and Chopper is like eight and short circuits to screaming when shown affection. Zoro has trauma for sure, but his trauma is like...he lost someone, so he's protective and often reckless with his own life. So compared to the rest of the strawhats he's like the chillest guy ever. Man just wants to take naps and then make sure nobody else dies so he can get back to napping again. He's an alcoholic but this is never like,,, a problem. He's just there. Walking around like ok what are you nutcases up to today. I'm gonna go take my shirt off and swim in an icy river. This will have less crazy results than what everyone else decided to do today.

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

Dumbledore was clever, cunning, and magically powerful. If he wanted real power, he could have quite quickly brought the wizarding world to its knees. Actually, he feared power and deliberately limited himself from it and tried not to get involved in the most political decisions because he knew he had a visionary side that could make him start deciding people's fates "for the greater good." He knew he could make mistakes. That's why all his positions were not really about power but were more like representative and guarantor roles, where there were many other decision-makers, and his power could be limited by others — from headmaster (from which he was disgracefully kicked out) to the position in the useless magical version of the UN.

Dumbledore didn't seek power, he feared it. That's why he avoided making some decisions and increasing his power even when he could and should have done so (like taking the post of Minister).

At first Harry thinks Dumbledore is almost like a god, but then he realizes that Dumbledore actually has no real power, makes mistakes, and is just an ordinary person with his own flaws, who has been fighting his inner demons all his life and can't forgive himself for a mistake he made in his youth.

Dumbledore is actually a deeply traumatised character who is often afraid to make decisions and avoids doing things because he believes his actions sometimes don't lead to good outcomes. He avoids action even when it's really needed, doing the bare minimum.

He is very distant, closed off, and I think quite an unhappy person. I can almost see the pain Dumbledore went through with the whole Harry situation, but it was a difficult decision that only he could make, and he actually hates himself for it, which is why he distances himself from Harry as much as possible (I don't think it's the right decision. I see it as Dumbledore's weakness.) Dumbledore's death isn't a sad event for him, it's the release he had been waiting for a long time.

This is such a simple idea that I really don't understand how people see him as a character who fought Voldemort just to keep his kinda pathetic power.

Lol James died because he treated Peter like a pet

james potter stans are a bunch of cowards, they need to hide behind james poc's hc to avoid dealing with reality: he was a white, rich, privileged guy who thought he had the right to hex anyone who annoyed him.

1. Stripping someone to their underwear, while choking them and assaulting them beforehand, in public, is definitely sexual assault.

I compared it to groping because it's essentially mild sexual assault, but both have the same effect on the victim: lack of consent, sexual humiliation, and exposure, in Snape's case. And in real life, forced exposure is considered sexual assault.

2. No, it was James starting the fights, with Sirius. Snape was only fighting back. The Marauders targeted Snape for their own amusement, and he merely retaliated in self-defense. Should he just take it? This is victim blaming.

3. It's because his whole life he never had power and respect. At home, he was abused and neglected. At Hogwarts, he was bullied, assaulted, and gaslighted by both his abusers, his best friend, and the authorities, who failed to intervene plus Dumbledore, who protected his abusers. No authority ever prevented James and Sirius from attacking Snape. He needed power, he needed to feel respected, because he never was, and it's perfectly normal to crave that. His agency was always taken away. Cults target people like Snape because he's insecure, seeks community, acceptance, and a sense of power, and he's useful at that. He also shared a dorm with Slytherins every day, so it's no wonder he got sucked into their camaraderie in some way. He merely sought agency, since everyone around kept stripping it from him. James essentially contributed to Snape's social alienation, disrespect, ostracization, and indirectly was partly responsible for Snape's radicalization, though not completely.

4. I'm not saying what Snape did was good, nor am I justifying his actions. I'm simply saying that James and Sirius were a pretty big contributor to him getting sucked into the Death Eater circle and that they both abused him, and Snape was the victim in their dynamic.

I'm talking about social power and those who were constantly neglected of it - of course, people want to reclaim their power. James was a socially popular, accepted, wealthy, powerful pureblood who had a stable home, whereas Snape was often ostracized, humiliated, a poor, ugly half-blood in Slytherin where status is everything. He was also neglected and abused by his family at home and abused at Hogwarts, literally everywhere. His pursuit of power was about protection, belonging, and self-worth, which he didn’t get anywhere else. And teenagers need those things.

All of your arguments ignore context, as well as how oppressive systems work and affect the oppressed.

can snape stans for the love of god please shut the fuck up

here are some things i’ve GENUINELY seen snape stan’s say today and i have receipts:

1. that lily only fell in love with james because he gave her a love potion. i…i don’t even know what to say other than that this is obscene.

2. that james’ actions could be compared to what death eaters do. i’m sorry, has james ever killed or tortured anybody purely due to their race/ethnicity? does james think that all minorities deserve to die or be controlled? and do i need to remind people that snape literally WAS an avid blood supremacist and death eater?? jesus fucking christ…

3. like 3000 people saying over and over that james sexually assaulted snape. first of all, comparing pantsing to sexual assault is extremely disrespectful to anybody who’s been s/a’d, myself included. second of all, that only happened in the movies, dipshits. clearly you didn’t read the books if you obsess over that argument.

4. that lily, sirius, remus, james, and peter are all worse people than snape. i’m sorry, did any of them grow up to torment innocent children? did any of them grow up to find pleasure in the pain and suffering and fear of little kids, using their position as a TEACHER to express prejudice? did any of them grow up to use a child’s DEAD DAD’s actions from DECADES AGO to justify cruelty? peter grows up to be awful, but the other four make childhood mistakes that they learn and grow from in adulthood. snape never learns and grows. he just gets worse, and that’s nobody’s fault but his own.

5. that minerva and hagrid are just as bad as snape. first of all, hagrid never discriminated against students for their race or identity and neither does minerva. hagrid and minerva are tough but fair. they don’t enact cruelty. when they see bullies or cruel students get what’s coming to them, then they turn away because they’re witnessing natural consequences. i won’t deny that minerva and hagrid have favorites but they aren’t blatantly cruel to people who aren’t favorites and their only acts of cruelty are ones in which the students ACTUALLY INSTIGATE something worth punishing. snape punishes neville for existing. he punishes hermione for daring to participate in class. and malfoy goes off scott free because he’s a pure blood.

moral of the story, snape stans are delusional. if y’all weren’t so INSANE, then maybe i’d actually like snape. but you are. so i don’t, and i doubt i ever will!

Not all kinks have to be accepted. We should accept that it's normal to have these kinks and not shame the people for it, but some practices of kinks shouldn’t be supported or normalized as a good thing. Talking about cnc mostly. It is dangerous to participate in it and people should be wary to even consider it if they have these fantasies. It's okay to have all types of fantasies, but not every fantasy is good for the person or anyone involved. Critical thinking is important in this context. But I agree with the rest.

Boundary setting, LGBTQIA acceptance, and kink positivity, and enthusiastic consent are requirements of a sex positive culture.

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...

You seem to assume that Harry already had a fully formed identity as a toddler or an inherent essence embedded into his soul that defines him regardless of how his environment shaped him. That is simply not true. That’s not how human personalities and behavior develop in real life. Due to the significant differences in Lily’s and Harry’s lives and upbringings, it’s clear to me that these two couldn't be more different in terms of personality and how their minds interacted with the world. While they might share some surface-level traits, such as stubbornness, a sense of justice, and martyrdom, these traits do not tell us who a person actually is, and that applies to Lily and Harry as well. These traits could easily be present in other individuals who still act in opposite ways and could also manifest completely differently in both Lily and Harry.

What makes a full personality is the interplay of traits within the context of a person’s behavioral patterns, decision-making, worldview, relationships, emotional processes, problem-solving, and more. So while I agree that the narrative suggests Lily and Harry share some surface-level traits that are unique to them and distinguish them from others, I also believe these traits manifest differently in each of them and that their full personalities and mental processes function in very different ways. Comparing them symbolically makes sense, but comparing them individually does not.

harry potter is NOT james potter.

I love parallels. I love people reminding others of those they've lost along the way.

But Harry Potter is not James . And that is so vital to his entire character.

When people see Harry, they see James. They see a James who sees the world through Lily's eyes. When they see Harry, they don't see Harry.

And that is so vital to his entire being. It's vital to how people see Harry. The people that didn't know James, see the Boy-Who-Lived.

The people who did, who were close to Harry, to James, to Lily. They see James and Lily Potter. They see the people who died, people they were close to, people they miss every day but will never see again.

Remus, Sirius, Snape, McGonagall.

At first, they see James and Lily. And then when they meet him - apart from Snape- they quickly realise he is anything but.

Harry is not arrogant, rich, spoilt. He doesn't have an ego, he doesn't play pranks, he isn't a chaser, he doesn't pick fights.

Harry isn't exceptionally bright at everything he does, he isn't inconceivably forgiving for those who don't deserve it.

He is not Lily and James.

When peole write Harry as a golden retriever, as effortlessly good at everything, they aren't writing about Harry.

Harry who grew up not wanted. Harry who grew up believing something was wrong with him. Harry who was forced into the wizarding world with no knowledge. Harry who is as stubborn as a mule,. Harry who is loyal to a fault, who forgives those he loves, Harry who isn't his parents.

He has traits of them, their anger, their ability to love, and much much more.

BUT Harry Potter isn't them. He isn't the 'best of them both' he isn't James or Lily or Sirius or Regulus.

Harry Potter is Harry. Just Harry.

And that is why he doesn't get along ith Snape. That's why McGonagall believes Harry dragged Neville out for a joke in first year.

When people see Harry, they don't see Harry. And by writing Harry as somebody else, or as 'so-and-so's child' you're not doing the character justice.

'I want a complex character with complex relationships'

'i want an angry character'

'i want to read a book that makes me think'

you couldn't even handle Harry Potter.

Perfect analysis.

Hello!

Fistly, I love your content <3

Secondly, do you think there were other reasons besides the difference in wealth, class and power as to why James and Sirius treated Severus the way they did?

They mock and humiliate him and reduce him to a toy, a doll to have fun with. But if that's all there is, they should torment him and leave, right? However, that does not happen. And this is the part I find odd. The way they watch him during the exam in the flashback (what business do they have watching someone write their paper?), the way Sirius' eyes follow him like a preditor to a rabbit when he spots Snape under the tree. James promises Lily to stop pranking people, but goes behind her back to get to Severus anyway. He dies for the tiniest chance that this woman may leave, but he betrays her trust that easily just to torment Snape more? It seems a bit obsessive to me, not just the typycal bullying,worse, something a bit off. Obsessive from James' side and then Sirius would follow his lead in any case. Ofc, I could be wrong about all of this.

What do you think?

<3

Oh, this is such a juicy question, and thanks for the kind words! ❤️

Buckle up, because we're diving deep into the murky waters of school bullying dynamics and why James and Sirius’s treatment of Severus isn’t your average schoolyard torment. (I love to made these type of meta because analyze violence is my cardio lol) This is gonna be looooooong:

At its core, bullying thrives on power imbalances. James and Sirius had every advantage: wealth, status, looks, charisma, magical talent—you name it. Severus, on the other hand, was everything they weren’t: poor, socially awkward, a loner, and unkempt. People like James and Sirius often prey on someone like Severus because he represents a threat to their sense of superiority. He’s smart, talented, and doesn’t bow to them, which means they can’t control or dominate him the way they can others. For people like James, that’s an itch they have to scratch.

But with James and Sirius, this goes beyond garden-variety bullying. It has this weird intensity to it that’s worth unpacking and as you said before, there’s something almost compulsive about the way James and Sirius target Severus. This isn’t just "let’s embarrass the nerd for laughs and move on." It’s fixated. Watching him during an exam? Catching sight of him under a tree and zoning in like a predator? Going out of his way to break his promise to Lily just to torment him again? That’s next-level, and here’s why that might be:

Severus was different: Beyond class, wealth, and upbringing, Severus was a challenge. He didn’t back down, didn’t beg, and he didn’t play the role of the "grateful victim" who might humor them to escape more torment. Instead, he fought back (verbally or with magic), which probably pissed James off even more. Bullies hate it when their victim refuses to crumble.

Insecurity masked as dominance: James, despite his wealth and privilege, could still be deeply insecure. Think about it: someone like Severus, who came from nothing, could rival him in magical skill and intelligence. That’s a big bruise to James’s ego. Bullying might have been his way of proving to himself—and everyone watching—that he was "better."

Additionally, let’s not forget that canonically, James’s animosity toward Severus began because of his relationship with Lily. It’s likely that, until he managed to date her and ensure any bond she had with Severus was completely severed, James experienced jealousy, anger, and even the insecurity of thinking they might have something more.

For someone like James—accustomed to being handed everything by his doting parents, who gets what he wants with the snap of a finger, and who’s probably never been told “no”—insecurity wasn’t something he’d know how to handle. The idea that someone like Severus, from a rival house, who held beliefs James had been taught were “wrong,” who was poor, scruffy, unattractive, could possibly achieve what James wanted, or spend endless time with the girl he liked, must have been inconceivable. Unthinkable.

Once again, class and status come into play: the wealthy kid who’s had everything can present himself as a fighter for social justice, but deep down, in certain situations, that intrinsic sense of superiority and entitlement always surfaces. After winning Lily over, James probably thought he had every right to treat Severus however he wanted. By that point, he’d dehumanized him to such an extent that he no longer saw him as a person.

On top of that, if you consider that James likely justified his bullying by convincing himself it was legitimate because Severus was hanging around with dark wizards, it all makes sense. It’s the classic psychological mechanism of rationalizing harmful behavior: “I’m not doing anything wrong; he deserves it.” It’s actually a pretty logical progression when you think about it.

Sirius’s role: Sirius is a complicated mess of a character. Growing up in a family where dominance, control, and punishment were the norm, Sirius might have channeled that energy into his dynamic with Severus. If James was leading the charge, Sirius probably saw joining in as a way to solidify their bond while also exercising some of his own unresolved issues. But the predatory way you describe Sirius observing Severus? That’s chilling, and it checks out.

I’ve mentioned this in another post, but Sirius is a Black, and his rebellious persona and attempts to distance himself from his family rested on two fundamental pillars: being a Gryffindor and defending Muggle-borns. However, at the end of the day, Sirius was still a boy raised in an aristocratic family that believed they were superior to others for absurd reasons. This superiority complex led them to treat an entire group of people as “the other,” dehumanizing them to justify their marginalization and even their extermination.

These are the values Sirius grew up with, and like many rich kids who rebel without bothering to deconstruct the behavioral patterns they’ve inherited, he thought that simply rejecting blood purity and getting Sorted into another house was enough to absolve him.

But Snape’s presence challenges that belief. Sirius’s relationship with Severus reveals that, deep down, Sirius isn’t so different from his mother or his cousin Bellatrix. Sirius sees Snape as “the other.” He dehumanizes Severus in the same way his family dehumanizes Muggle-borns—but for being a Slytherin and for desiring the things Sirius himself has chosen to reject. This cognitive dissonance makes Sirius feel justified in tormenting Severus, much like his family feels justified in their bigotry.

In the end, Sirius is just another hypocrite with a different spin—like so many others.

I’ve also pointed out several times that Sirius has a sadistic streak. Maybe not to the same degree as Bellatrix, because she’s clearly far more unhinged, but Sirius does have that violent, bloodthirsty impulse typical of the Blacks. Since he can’t channel it the way his family does, he chose an easy target—someone disliked by many, someone who didn’t fit in, who was isolated, and, most tragically, someone who no one cared about, not even his own parents. Sirius used Severus as a means to vent his anger and sadistic tendencies, fully aware that no one would step in to defend him.

Furthermore, as a wealthy boy from an aristocratic family with progressive ideas, it’s no surprise that Sirius relied on James as his moral compass when he struggled to discern right from wrong. If James believed it was entirely justified to bully and torment Severus, why would Sirius think otherwise?

James embodied everything Sirius wished he could be: a boy with the same privilege as him, but from a family without extremist beliefs. James’s parents treated Sirius like a son. They believed in “good” things. They were the “good” ones. If James was convinced that bullying Severus was the right thing to do, then Sirius had no reason to question it.

It became a way for Sirius to justify and validate his own awful behavior—a pattern that’s sadly all too common among bullies.

When we look at how James and Sirius treated Severus, it’s clear they didn’t just see him as someone to mock and forget; they actively sought to dehumanize him. This process of dehumanization is deeply rooted in power dynamics. Severus wasn’t just the “nerd” they bullied—he was someone who challenged their place in the social order. He dared to stand up to James over Lily and, as a highly capable student, constantly reminded them that they weren’t untouchable. Even if they had reached the top of the social and academic hierarchy, Severus was proof that someone outside their circle could match or even surpass them. In their eyes, Severus became the "other," someone who had to be eliminated to keep their world intact.

Dehumanization in bullying has devastating effects on the victim. It’s not just about causing temporary physical or emotional harm—it’s about erasing the person’s identity, reducing them to nothing more than an object for entertainment or a pawn in a game of power.

In Severus’s case, James and Sirius didn’t just want to make him miserable—they wanted to strip away his dignity, his individuality, and his sense of self-worth. They needed to prove, not only to Severus but also to themselves and their peers, that he didn’t belong. This is why their actions go beyond mere pranks or teasing—they were asserting their dominance and ensuring that Severus could never challenge the status quo they benefited from.

The relationship between James, Sirius, and Severus is a reflection of how power dynamics, insecurity, and the struggle for control can lead to psychological abuse far more complex than simple schoolyard rivalry. Throughout the story, James and Sirius don’t just try to humiliate Severus—they do it to prove something about themselves, about their place in the world, and about the relationships they maintain with those around them. This isn’t just bullying; it’s a demonstration of how children raised in a dysfunctional value system, with a limited understanding of others, can wield destructive power over the more vulnerable.

That’s why, when we look at Severus and understand what he endured, it’s not just a matter of “he joined the Death Eaters because he was bad.” There’s a context of pain, abuse, and a desperate search to belong to something or someone. What James and Sirius did wasn’t just cruel—it was one of the cornerstones that pushed Severus down the path he later followed.