disgursting-scheiyt

[disgursting-scheiyt]

👁👁

[disgursting-scheiyt]

Severus Snape is a Teacher

[disgursting-scheiyt]

BOG MAN

[disgursting-scheiyt]

shape language… snape shapes.

[disgursting-scheiyt]

reminder that when Remus left his office to pursue Sirius and Peter and forgot all about taking the potion that he needed in order to not black out and turn into a murderous rampaging monster, he put his own need to help Sirius over the safety of all the students and staff at Hogwarts. His recklessness with his medication is what earned him being sacked, because werewolves are dangerous without that potion. he's just so lucky he resigned. because if he'd taken his potion, like he was supposed to, the jinx on the position would have found another way to oust him. and given what happened to previous and future DADA professors (quirrel: dead, lockhart: obliviated, barty/moody: dementor'd, umbridge: physically traumatized by centaurs) ... remus got lucky. he should be thanking snape for his life.

[disgursting-scheiyt]

Too Deep for the Healing

I made this post because I witnessed a massively triggering reddit debate, but the mods at r/harrypotter wouldn't post it (I admit, I asked a friend to post it for me). Trigger warning: Sexual Assault.

So, did James commit sexual assault against Snape?

The opener is a trick question, because “sexual assault” is technically a term of art in law and in psychology. Wizards aren’t governed by any Muggle legal system and the Hogwarts library doesn’t carry the DSM. For that matter, wizards are also fictional and written by an author, so whether something falls under a technical definition from an entirely different semantic field (psychology and law… vs. YA fantasy literature) is meaningless.

With that said, in all fairness, if you apply the technical criteria, it definitely was sexual assault. 

From the England and Wales Rape Crisis website:

<<The Sexual Offences Act 2003 says that someone commits sexual assault if all of the following happens:

They intentionally touch another person (James declared intent)

The touching is sexual (if the very act of using Levicorpus on Snape wasn’t sexual in itself, the threat that followed surely was)

The other person does not consent to the touching (no brainer)

They do not reasonably believe that the other person consents (no brainer and kind of the point)

The touching can be with any part of the body or with anything else (let’s say that if the British legislator had had the foresight to include wizards, they would have added “wand���)>>

Also from that website:

<<There are many other ‘tactics’ that someone might use to sexually assault someone. For example:

bullying>>

So there you are.

Sure, some people view this as “pantsing,” a cutesy way to refer to the (perplexing) act of surprisingly taking off a person’s pants. When I (F) was about 8, a classmate (M) opened the door to my bathroom stall in front of other kids to poke fun at me, and I gotta say it never registered and still doesn’t register as a sexual assault because we were literal children. Shitty, it might have been, but… meh. James wasn’t 8, or 10. I just can’t imagine anyone old enough to shave, who doesn’t have serious developmental issues, not understanding that genitals aren’t just “funny”. But if one insists on classifying it as “pantsing,” they should refer to the Wikipedia entry, which speaks of a 5-second long process, not the culmination* of a protracted affair. Also from Wikipedia: “The United States legal system has prosecuted it as a form of sexual harassment of children.”

*I hope it was the culmination: we don’t see if it went that far so we obviously can’t know if it might have gone even further.

So if one were to be fair while applying strict technical terms to James’s action (assuming he went through with it), one would have to cede the point. The term “sexual assault” might be emotionally charged, but going by objective definitions, it applies.

But of course it’s the emotional charge that matters here, because again, IT’S A BOOK. So I suppose there’s no escaping asking ourselves if James went through with his threat*. It’s more likely than not, since the scene could have easily ended with James being interrupted, or even saying “just kidding, I don’t want to make everyone cry, his face is ugly enough.” His furious expression and the fade-to-black suggest that he did. Also, to feature nudity in a YA novel (in which James is, after all, intended as a positive character) would have been literally impossible. The implication is heavy enough. And honestly, I really would like to know who watches a sitcom where the characters start kissing, discuss having sex, and get as naked as the censors would allow before the scene is cut… and needs help figuring out what’s going on here. For James to catch himself on time and not follow through might have been a very compelling way to start his redemption arc, but as we know, that took another year+.

*If he didn’t, it’s mere sexual harassment. But then, to turn the James defenders’ argument against them… it’s one memory out of his entire life. Who’s to say he wasn’t even worse on other occasions? After all, the title “Snape’s Worst Memory” is, in retrospect, about Lily - not the bullying, which was very clearly business as usual.

If Snape had been a girl, it would have been a no brainer. If James had been Snape’s victim, let’s be real, it would have been a no brainer too.

We know what happened had because what happened traumatized Snape… and Harry. Immediately after he saw it, Harry wondered if his dad might have somehow forced his mom to marry him. In HBP he is still unable to tell Ron and Hermione what he had seen in the Pensieve, and doesn’t even say anything when he remembers Snape had called Lily a mudblood. Even in DH, two years after he had seen the memory, he looks away rather than watch the scene unfold again (and the phrasing - “But Harry kept his distance this time, because he knew what happened after James had hoisted Severus into the air and taunted him; he knew what had been done and said” - is highly suggestive). Also, since it's a book, here's the traditional end-of-book canonical voice of the author explaining to us how we ought to feel:

“I trust Severus Snape,” said Dumbledore simply. “But I forgot — another old man’s mistake — that some wounds run too deep for the healing. I thought Professor Snape could overcome his feelings about your father — I was wrong.”

This is the same Dumbledore who had, a book earlier, expected Snape and Sirius to play nice, the same Dumbledore who can criticize a man who had just expired in front of his grieving godson, so if he says Snape could not overcome his feelings about James, he probably had good reason to.

We know Snape only bothered to hide very few memories in the Pensieve, presumably the highly volatile and top-secret ones, during the occlumency lessons. We know Snape was surprisingly okay with Harry infiltrating his embarrassing childhood memories, and it was only Harry viewing SWM that drove him over the edge, up to and including defying Dumbledore. We know that it was Harry’s attempt at Levicorpus that made Snape lose it during the HBP confrontation (and not Sectumsempra or even Crucio). In short, we know he’s traumatized. To insist that he’s not legitimately traumatized, but just bitter and petty about getting one-upped and defeated by James or whatever, is not only cruel but also exactly how people react to victims in real life. Minimization, victim-blaming, and denial. How damaging, to be a victim and see this shit, honestly.

Sure, you can interpret Snape as petty and bitter, and you would be right. But you gotta admit the hatred for James rivals all else. Easy - James got Lily*. It’s not Snape’s (valid) trauma, it’s his (incelly, entitled, invalid) jealousy. Except that Snape could have very easily attempted to use a love potion on Lily himself, or taken some measure - any measure - to alleviate his jealousy. And when others accuse him of jealousy, it’s never about Lily or romantic success in general - it’s about James’s Quidditch skills. JKR, however, supplements:

“James always suspected Snape harboured deeper feelings for Lily, which was a factor in James' behaviour to Snape."

Assuming she doesn’t mean “James thought Snape was morally in the wrong for having feelings for Lily,” the more viable interpretation was “James did not appreciate someone else having feelings for Lily.”

*Never mind that James got Lily long after Snape’s supposedly irrational hatred for James reared its head, so.

James intends the removal of Snape's underpants as an escalation of the verbal and physical violence. What's left, after that? Where do you escalate to, from physical violence? It's a reaction to being romantically rebuffed, and compared (unfavorably) to Snape. Jealousy drove James's behavior, not Snape's behavior, and accusing an assault victim of only acting this way because he's jealous of his assailant is... a choice. Especially when the assailant is dead, and so is the object of jealousy, and there's literally nothing and no one left to be jealous of anymore.

Jealousy explains few to none of Snape’s actions, and rather a lot of what James got up to.

Do we need to discuss what the Death Eaters did to the poor Muggle woman at the Quidditch World Cup? That Draco wasn't trying to be helpful in warning Hermione to run away, but rather was attempting to belittle her by alluding to her sexuality? Do we need to, really? Do we need to recall that Voldemort himself described the Death Eaters' behavior (which wasn't as atrocious as James's) as "Muggle Torture"?

How much do we need to be spoon-fed? “Sexual assault” is a charged term? Good. That scene is meant to be appalling. There’s a reason it’s one of the most detailed, graphic and harrowing scenes. It’s important for understanding these characters.

If JKR had wanted to write James as noble, if arrogant, and Snape as jealous and full of unjustified hatred  toward James, she could have. It’s Snape’s hatred toward poor Harry that’s invalid, as the text comments on.

If one feels that to call someone a “sexual assaulter” is to caricaturize them or unfairly malign them when they’re actually more nuanced and complex than that, I can only reply that they can take it up with the author who had made her character that way. If we want to believe a sexual assaulter can grow, change and atone, good on us for our optimism and compassion, although I hope we reserve some for the victims. If we want to believe James, specifically, did - it’s not my cup of tea, but knock yourselves out. But not calling a spade a spade is not the solution and is not helpful.

One last point. I’ve seen it argued that calling James a sex offender is somehow harmful to “real” victims, because it trivializes “real” sexual violence. Funny, that. Funny that feminists fought with tooth and nail for less exacting interpretations that would protect as many people as possible, and then here we are, resorting to (incorrect) technical classifications to avoid calling someone a sex offender, when being a sex offender is nearly his entire claim to fame. Funny, that suddenly gatekeeping is okay and even beneficial. Funny that we think that if we salvage someone from being considered a sex offender by the strictest definitions, it makes his actions remotely okay. Funny that we need to be reminded again, in 2022, that sexual violence is sometimes about sex, but always about power. That men can be and often are victim, That many people, including many “real victims” (in the sense that they are not fictional and are also victims) take great comfort in the representation of a believable survivor who is nevertheless a hero (and a cautionary tale).

This argument is ridiculous and borders on immoral. No one in their right mind would call Harry’s friends sex offenders as they exposed his form shamelessly while under the effect of Polyjuice Potion. That indeed would be trivializing, so no one does it. It’s especially ridiculous for a fandom that is so adept at understanding parallels and allusions to real life when they’re much less fitting, but instructive all the same, such as house-elf <> slave, lychanthropy <> other stigmatized conditions, and Death Eaters <> Nazis and other hate groups. What's trivializing is the idea that one can atone for and move on from the sexual assault they committed by being nice to some other people. What's trivializing is to maintain that there's a proper way to be a victim, complete with a timeline for healing (and that if you don't comply, you're probably not even a victim). For what it’s worth (and it should not be worth anything), I personally have all the authority and moral high ground I need to make this point.

Hate Snape all you want. He’s a bastard. Criticize his coping mechanisms, by all means. They’re inadequate and toxic - but let’s not tell ourselves he has no need for them. Love James if it makes you happy. Many beloved people are sex offenders and their unlovable victims are… just that, and pretending this isn’t so is helping no one.

[disgursting-scheiyt]

snape clutching lily’s letter in grimmauld place isn’t supposed to be a sweet moment where you’re overwhelmed by the romance of it all, it’s supposed to be an ugly moment in which a grief stricken man tried to find comfort in the words of a friend who died decades ago. it’s supposed highlight snape’s isolation, how being a spy cut him off from other people and now he killed his last friend and was truly alone.

[disgursting-scheiyt]

He hated bullies.

One day he will be able to pay them all back.

Whatever it takes.

Decision

Drawn in 2023

[disgursting-scheiyt]

‘Friendly Competition’ does not equal ‘Warfare’, Severus.

Not shown: Minerva, face first in the snow after being taken out by the Sniper Rifle equivalent of a snowball.

Challenge the Spy they said, it’ll be fun, they said

[disgursting-scheiyt]

thinking about how in 'snape's worst memory' when james potter tells sirius black he knows how to rid him of his current boredom, indicating severus snape, the book literally describes sirius going very still, like a dog who had just spotted a rabbit.

you lot are convinced that it was just a 'rivalry' right, but if this were to be a rivarly, snape would just be another dog. dogs fighting. not the literal PREY. a dog and a rabbit? like a HUNT?! are you KIDDING ME?!

[disgursting-scheiyt]

i think despite the terrible decisions he made in his life, child severus snape would be in awe of, and be really pleased with how his adult self turned out. this was a kid who stumbled over his words, got easily flustered and was described as awkward and twitchy. severus snape as an adult is intimidating, impressive, glides about the castle in his billowing robes, and strikes fear into the hearts of anyone who tries to cross him. he's also an extremely talented wizard in his own right. contrary to popular belief, i also don't think he seemed too much bothered about what people think of him - a feature most people want or respect. for all the fandom can talk on how much his life must have sucked, it appears, at least to me, that he wasn't as downtrodden as everyone thinks. there's this persistent resoluteness and fearlessness to him. i think about his conversation with dumbledore after the yule ball often. he doesn't say much, but the way he speaks so matter-of-factly about karkaroff and the inevitable return of voldemort. it clearly never occured to him to even hesitate. if anyone wants to know what kind of man he was, just look at that scene.

there are countless characters in harry potter that would never, could never do what severus snape did, let alone unflinchingly. it's very admirable, and you wonder why harry named his child after him.

[disgursting-scheiyt]

local unshowered slytherin

lol I miss drawing the boy

[disgursting-scheiyt]

the thing that completely makes the 'the marauders/james and snape were both as bad as each other' argument completely false is the fact that... take a look at james in particular, born in a privileged position, loved by his parents, rich, pureblood. then take a look at snape, born in a poor family, has an abusive father and a neglectful mother, a halfblood. the other marauders, but especially sirius, completely complicit in bullying this kid just for existing. (because snape was not a death eater when he was in hogwarts nor was there any reason to believe he would be one from the very moment he arrived at hogwarts other than the marauders' prejudice towards slytherins.) this boy, was abused at home and bullied at school by these kids who just decided to make his life miserable just because they felt like it. growing up bullied and abused can make a person cold and mean. 'hurt people hurt people.' snape was not a bad person when he was a student at hogwarts, his bad decisions in life came after leaving hogwarts. and maybe it would help to consider the fact that his bad decisions come from the fact that his entire life he had been treated miserably by everyone around him, and he was abandoned by his best and only friend. lily was amused when he was being lifted up and had his genitals exposed in front of a crowd of students. lily married the man who made going to school a horrible experience for severus. none of the marauders (apart from perhaps lupin, but even that is debatable) ever showed any remorse for their actions, and if they did, none of them ever cared to apologize to snape for years of bullying and nearly getting him killed. james only has a 'redemption arc' in fanon. he is never actually shown to have matured. getting older and having a child is not maturing, even immature and irresponsible people can have children. (clearly, look at snape's father.) the only people who treated snape even remotely humanely were slytherins that would grow up to become death eaters. slytherins who were older than him too. and you don't think at all that that sounds awfully similar to being groomed into a cult? he switched sides and became a spy at great risk of his own life. he worked with dumbledore despite dumbledore never being shown to do anything to stop the bullying that happened to snape while he was in school. if snape remained loyal to voldemort, the wizarding world would have been screwed. he was mean, yes. bitter, yes. cold, yes. the man hasn't had a day of comfort in his life. from start to finish, he's been drenched in misery. that's bound to make someone feel and act miserably. but at the end of the day, he did what was right. meanwhile what did james do? bullied people and then died. what a hero, i guess?

[disgursting-scheiyt]

To all the people who think James “did god’s work” by bullying Snape, I hope you realise that you sound like horrible people for thinking that sexual assault, especially when it was done to a child (if you like to call 16 year old James who committed SA “a child” then I have every right to call Snape a child when he was the same age and was actually the person the SA was done to), or bullying, could ever be justified.

Snape became a Death Eater after they graduated, so you can’t use that as an excuse. And do people not realise that a poor, half-blood Slytherin being bullied by rich popular Gryffindors would only drive him further away from the light side?

And no matter how awful you think teen!Snape might’ve been—that would still never, ever justify James’s actions in SWM. You do not have to be perfect to be a victim, you don’t even have to be a good person to be a victim. Not being an innocent saint does nothing to erase being bullied or assaulted, and the fact that Snape antis have continuously twisted the narrative in order to try and make Snape look like the bad guy when he was canonically the one who was bullied, harassed, and nearly killed, is just revolting.

Using logic like “he deserved it,” “it’s his fault for not wearing trousers,” “it’s his fault for being a curious teenager,” “he did other bad things so that makes it okay,” etc, makes you sound almost as shitty as James and Sirius. You aren’t fictional characters, your words and actions hold power, and you should understand that claims like that are the very things that awful people have said to try and disregard real-life victims.

Bullying should never be glorified, no matter who it’s done to or done by. Period.

[disgursting-scheiyt]

Here’s a sneak peak of my contribution for the Snape Calendar 2023 @snapecelebration

The calendar’s theme is “legends and fairy tales”, so I was inspired by The Ugly Duckling by H. C. Andersen. “He now felt glad at having suffered sorrow and trouble, because it enabled him to enjoy so much better all the pleasure and happiness around him; for the great swans swam round the new-comer, and stroked his neck with their beaks, as a welcome.”

More info on how to get it here.

[disgursting-scheiyt]

“If not for the hastily cast silencing charm, all of Hogwarts would have heard the anguished wail that ripped from the man’s throat. A sound so visceral in it’s nature, that Hogwarts herself being the only witness to the cries- her very foundation shook, her stone walls groaning in protest as she too grieved a long side him, as a conviction, a perception built on old wounds not yet healed, shattered before the man’s feet. Harry, was not James.” -Snape seeing the parallels between him and Harry. 

[disgursting-scheiyt]

Obsession or Love?

Here's a (lightly edited) reddit post I had way too many opportunities to copy/paste, in my humble opinion a successful refutation of the idea that Snape's love for Lily was obsessive:

Let's end this obsession theory forever.

We have three interactions between Snape and Lily from the time they're not children. In one, he says they're "supposed to be friends", and she confirms. Interestingly, she does accuse him of obsessing - over Potter and his mates, so not over her. In interaction 2, he calls her a mudblood, in interaction 3, he attempts to apologize. At no point does he ask her out or say she owes him anything or act entitled to her affection, unless apologizing is an act of entitlement (if you think so, I am sorry for you). Further, Harry goes through his potions book with a fine tooth comb, and nowhere does he find a scribble of her initials or anything like that.

Sirius and Lupin, meanwhile, as adults, never say Snape tried to pursue Lily or stalked her, or that they ever spoke, including in the context of listing reasons why Snape was jealous of James. You KNOW they would have. When Lily asked him to, Snape left her alone.

Then she is put in the crossfire because of Snape's actions. Well, wanting someone not to die is not obsessive. I know people read a lot into Dumbledore's "you disgust me" comment, but that comment only proves that Dumbles is manipulative.

Then she dies anyway. Snape is feeling expressly suicidal, as many non-obsessive people do when someone they love dies and it's their fault. Dumbledore leverages his guilt into recruiting him to spy. He proceeds to keep his love/"obsession" a secret from everyone but Dumbles for 17 years, and in fact talks a lot about James, so it still looks like his "obsessions" are toward those he hates.

People say the "always" line is obsessive. Nope. If Dumbles had to ask "after all this time", then clearly Snape very much shut up about Lily, even when speaking to him. It's said in response to Dumbledore's explanation that Harry must die, which Snape perceives as a betrayal of his deepest motivation - protection, as opposed to vengeance.

People say it's obsessive that he stole the letter and the picture. Having one lousy souvenir of a dead loved one isn't obsessive. Needing something to give you the strength to keep going when you've just killed your only ally and mentor, a kind of talisman to remind you why you're putting yourself through all this pain, is not obsessive. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks in these terms, honestly. As for tearing the photo up, ofc he won't walk around with a picture of James. This isn't symbolically tearing apart the Potter family, as protecting its legacy is Snape's literal mission in life. This interpretation is patently absurd. Ofc he won't carry a letter that says "dear Padfoot." So in summation: no behavioral evidence of obsession in his behavior, only of love, remorse, guilt, and grief.

Magical evidence: the Patronus is a symbol of positive feelings, not obsession, unless Harry was obsessed with his dead dad and wanted to bang him, which is perhaps a creative interpretation but not an entirely accurate representation of Harry's feelings. Harry's stag was a representation of his inspiration and ideals and values, just like Snape's Doe. Further: Snape managed to hide his "obsession" from a mindreader, Voldemort. Obsessions are something you can't control by definition. You KNOW Voldy questioned him about that, probably in a way that involved torture, since Snape asked him to spare her, thus directly causing to Voldemort's first downfall. When Harry occludes Voldy successfully for the first time, it is at a moment of grief, guilt and love - over Dobby. Was Harry obsessed with Dobby? No. He felt responsible for the little guy's death though (and guilty and indebted, most likely). Snape's unequaled talent for occlumency should prove that he loved and grieved Lily, which is precisely the thing Voldy can't access and understand.

The author herself denied that Snape was obsessive, but frankly, even if she had said he was, what she wrote is very different. It also makes no sense that the big reveal and Voldy's downfall are because of some obsessive incel who wanted to bang Lily, in a CHILDREN'S BOOK about the power of love. Interpretations that don't completely undermine and contradict the central themes and messages are typically preferred.

Let's stop talking about the supposed obsession forever and instead wonder why some fans cannot wrap their heads around any explanation of anything that isn't gross and irrelevant.