Jesus H. Everloving CHRIST, What a Sexist!
Yes, I'm talking about you, vanceone. I thought I'd seen everything. I'd seen you call Gun "the high school whore" and say that Ginny Weasley has a claim to be "the school bicycle." Those were bad. Very bad. Very sexist, offensive, and misogynist. But this... your formal attempt to justify "calling Ginny various sexual names, distasteful things," is even worse.
And I would say, that yes, there is no real evidence that Ginny sleeps around (though there's no real evidence she doesn't; that kind of stuff is just not in the books).
So why, then, are all these distasteful images applied to Ginny? I'm not really going to defend those terms, but rather explain, I think, why Ginny is referred to so much in sexual terms. She is not the only character, though, mostly defined as a sex object. Fleur is the other.
I tried not to shout, but I failed. FLEUR AND GINNY ARE NOT "MOSTLY DEFINED AS A SEX OBJECT." No character in the HP series is "mostly defined as a sex object." Fleur is a Triwizard champion, a snobby Beauxbaton partisan, an affectionate sister, a loving and loyal fiancée, an annoying prospective daughter-in-law, a beautiful girl, a grateful friend to Harry, a part-Veela, a person. Ginny is a sister, a jokester, a Seeker, a Chaser, an accomplished liar, a daughter, a friend, a fighter, a giggler, a diary-writer, a rooster-strangler, a girl who nearly falls out of the Quidditch stands in her concern for Aidan Lynch, a Bat Bogey hexer, a blusher, a Pigwidgeon-namer, a defender of Bill's long hair, a tantrum-thrower, a peacemaker, a soother, a furious defender of Hagrid and Hermione, and Harry's best source of comfort. To say she's "mostly a sex object" says everything about you and nothing about either Ginny or J.K. Rowling.
But let's pass over your preposterous stereotypes about "bitchy cheerleaders" who "tend to play their looks into advantages; which is one reason they tend to get labled as sluts (or cheerleaders in general have that reputation), even if they are not, in fact, one" (NOTE: THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A "SLUT") and your description of Ginny as "while maybe not dating more than normal girls, is as far as we know the most traveled girl (or person) at Hogwarts" ("TRAVELED"? WHY NOT JUST SAY "SOILED"?). Let's pass over your just plain canon lies -- "Ginny never shows signs of real affection towards Harry" -- and completely unfounded speculations -- "I can't see Ginny laughing if she ate a canary cream. Or grew a beard. And there's no way she would test her products on herself."
Let's go straight to the really offensive stuff -- the stuff that makes me wish I could reach out and slap you:
And tend to resent Rowling going on about how ideal Ginny is, when the overarching theme of Ginny Weasley is sexual and physical things. She just seems to be there for the Hero to have sex with, before he moves on to the real work.... and frankly, I'd always hoped that Harry's love interest would be more than a roll in the hay
She just seems to be there for the Hero to have sex with? SHE JUST SEEMS TO BE THERE FOR THE HERO TO HAVE SEX WITH???
What kind of person are you, what kind of man are you, that you can describe any female that way? Just someone to have sex with? Let me tell you, buddy, NO FEMALE is "just there for a man to have sex with, before he moves on to the real work." That you could define ANY woman in those terms disgusts me. That you can say that about a fifteen-year-old girl, a girl who loves her parents and her brothers and her pets, a girl who laughs and plays and hopes and cries and comforts her brother and her mother when they are down... is despicable. If you think that's what these books portray, you don't deserve to read them.
I don't care that Ginny's just a fictional character. Your ability to describe her (or Fleur, or anyone) in such a way shows me things about your mind I wish I had never seen. You're a revolting misogynist, and I'm ashamed to share a fandom with you.
And I would say, that yes, there is no real evidence that Ginny sleeps around (though there's no real evidence she doesn't; that kind of stuff is just not in the books).
So why, then, are all these distasteful images applied to Ginny? I'm not really going to defend those terms, but rather explain, I think, why Ginny is referred to so much in sexual terms. She is not the only character, though, mostly defined as a sex object. Fleur is the other.
I tried not to shout, but I failed. FLEUR AND GINNY ARE NOT "MOSTLY DEFINED AS A SEX OBJECT." No character in the HP series is "mostly defined as a sex object." Fleur is a Triwizard champion, a snobby Beauxbaton partisan, an affectionate sister, a loving and loyal fiancée, an annoying prospective daughter-in-law, a beautiful girl, a grateful friend to Harry, a part-Veela, a person. Ginny is a sister, a jokester, a Seeker, a Chaser, an accomplished liar, a daughter, a friend, a fighter, a giggler, a diary-writer, a rooster-strangler, a girl who nearly falls out of the Quidditch stands in her concern for Aidan Lynch, a Bat Bogey hexer, a blusher, a Pigwidgeon-namer, a defender of Bill's long hair, a tantrum-thrower, a peacemaker, a soother, a furious defender of Hagrid and Hermione, and Harry's best source of comfort. To say she's "mostly a sex object" says everything about you and nothing about either Ginny or J.K. Rowling.
But let's pass over your preposterous stereotypes about "bitchy cheerleaders" who "tend to play their looks into advantages; which is one reason they tend to get labled as sluts (or cheerleaders in general have that reputation), even if they are not, in fact, one" (NOTE: THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A "SLUT") and your description of Ginny as "while maybe not dating more than normal girls, is as far as we know the most traveled girl (or person) at Hogwarts" ("TRAVELED"? WHY NOT JUST SAY "SOILED"?). Let's pass over your just plain canon lies -- "Ginny never shows signs of real affection towards Harry" -- and completely unfounded speculations -- "I can't see Ginny laughing if she ate a canary cream. Or grew a beard. And there's no way she would test her products on herself."
Let's go straight to the really offensive stuff -- the stuff that makes me wish I could reach out and slap you:
And tend to resent Rowling going on about how ideal Ginny is, when the overarching theme of Ginny Weasley is sexual and physical things. She just seems to be there for the Hero to have sex with, before he moves on to the real work.... and frankly, I'd always hoped that Harry's love interest would be more than a roll in the hay
She just seems to be there for the Hero to have sex with? SHE JUST SEEMS TO BE THERE FOR THE HERO TO HAVE SEX WITH???
What kind of person are you, what kind of man are you, that you can describe any female that way? Just someone to have sex with? Let me tell you, buddy, NO FEMALE is "just there for a man to have sex with, before he moves on to the real work." That you could define ANY woman in those terms disgusts me. That you can say that about a fifteen-year-old girl, a girl who loves her parents and her brothers and her pets, a girl who laughs and plays and hopes and cries and comforts her brother and her mother when they are down... is despicable. If you think that's what these books portray, you don't deserve to read them.
I don't care that Ginny's just a fictional character. Your ability to describe her (or Fleur, or anyone) in such a way shows me things about your mind I wish I had never seen. You're a revolting misogynist, and I'm ashamed to share a fandom with you.