Severus Snape And The Ongoing Theme Of “insufficient masculinity” (aka Homophobia/transphobia)

I made a Severus Snape playlist on Spotify. I hope you like it :)

I saw a Snape playlist here on Tumblr recently, I had this playlist for a long time so I decided to post it.

Professor Remus Lupin on platform 9 ¾ before he boards the train to Hogwarts.

Lupin is one of my absolute favorite HP characters, so it was about time I drew him!<3

Action Painter, 2011-2014

Kahn + Selesnick                                    

Little pose practice

I like to think the death eaters begrudgingly took Severus to some of their parties. He wouldn’t be this at ease at them, but maybe he actually enjoyed himself.

'the temptation of saint anthony (first series),' ten lithographs by odilon redon; french c. 1888.

daisies (1966) 🎀

JK Rowling took inspiration from his chemistry teacher to create Snape's character. In a long essay who talks about him the writer mentions his autism and makes a great parallel with Snape, it's very interesting.

I believe Snape is autistic

(FYI: I’m autistic myself and I have autistic children.)

He’s lonely. He doesn’t really have friends. We know of Lily, we also hear about Lucius Malfoy, but we don’t really see their friendship which in my opinion is much less close than fans believe. As a student he’s so alone that no one but Lily tries to stop the bullying.

He doesn’t participate in any social meetings. He’s quite miserable during the Christmas in Harry’s third year. He patrols the corridors and the grounds instead of attending the Yule Ball. He doesn’t stay for dinner after the Order meetings. He only attends the DE meetings because he has to.

His peers at school think he’s weird. Lily’s friends from Gryffindor don’t understand why she’s friends with him. When Harry asks why the Marauders bullied him, Sirius says he was different, weird, he was an "oddball". Autistic children and teenagers are often bullied because they are perceived as not normal, awkward, weird.

He doesn’t make a normal eye contact, he stares a bit too much. It can be partly explained by Legillimency, but he stared too much even as a teenager.

There’s a difference between how he speaks as a teenager and as an adult. It doesn’t sound entirely natural, he definitely had to put effort into that. It’s partly because he doesn’t want to sound like a poor man with a northern (?) accent, but autistic struggle with fluent communication may also be a reason.

He insists on precise definitions: Legilimency is not mind-reading, ghosts are not transparent but they are imprints of departed souls. He’s irritated that Harry has "no subtlety" and he doesn’t "understand fine distinctions".

He’s quite rude. He might be just *evil*, but he may just not fully understand how cruel he actually sounds. From his point of view he’s just honest and doesn’t beat around the bush. OK, maybe he’s a little mean, but not cruel… right?

He uses sarcasm (a lot of autistics actually do), but he doesn’t really appreciate Harry’s and other people’s sass, he treats their words too seriously.

He usually speaks coldly / calmly / without much emotion.

He’s usually dispassionate, he has limited facial expressions. Many autistic people also have a "resting b!tch face" unless they try to look more "normal". Perhaps he isn’t always as hateful as Harry thinks, perhaps it’s just his face.

He seems a little oblivious to other people’s emotional state and seems to analyse their behavior more intellectually.

He has special interests: Dark Arts / DADA and Potions.

He has his own collection of Potions ingredients, including rare ones, collection of weird jars (I guess they may contain some Potions ingredients, but also he may like them because of visual stimming aspect) and vast collection of books at home.

His Potions ingredients must be very orderly, he knows immediately that something is missing and what it is.

He "loves" rules. Students are breaking the rules? He takes points or gives detention. The Marauders are bullying him? He wants them expelled. (While Harry deals with the bullies on his own.) He’s caught Sirius whom he believes to be responsible for Lily’s death? He’s going to hand him over to the Ministry and the Dementors. (While Sirius and Remus want to murder Peter themselves.)

Since Snape likes rules and order, Harry who is a bit wild and unpredictable annoys him.

He doesn’t wash his hair as often as he should. It could be partly because of his poor background (he was neglected, he wasn’t taught to take a proper care of his hair, he didn’t even have a real bathroom as a child), partly because he has no one to look nice for, partly because of the Potions fumes. Autism might make him care less about his appearance. (He does care about hygiene though. Apparently he shaves regularly and Harry would certainly notice if Snape was dirty or smelly. His sallow skin and teeth have nothing to do with hygiene, it’s a result of his poverty and malnutrition.)

He stimms: He’s shredding leaves as a child. He’s flexing his fingers after the Shrieking Shack incident. During the Occlumency lessons he’s touching his lips with his finger while he’s thinking.

He has some sensory issues. He wears the same, a little baggy robes (they flutter as he walks). He’s sensitive to light: his Potions classroom is dim (it’s in the dungeons, but he could brighten it up with magic); he makes his DADA classroom dim, even though it’s no longer in the dungeons; when Harry comes to his first Occlumency lesson, Snape waits for him in a dark room. (You know, people don’t do things like that because they’re evil, it doesn’t make sense).

As a teenager he walks "like a spider" and generally he isn’t good at sports (we see him on a broom three times: in a memory of his unsuccessful flying lesson at school, being very pale and probably frightened after refereeing the Quidditch match in PS and trying to curse a DE and missing during the Battle of Seven Harrys).

John Nettleship whom Snape was partly based on was probably autistic.

Sexual Violence: Concept, Implications, and Consequences

I'm going to say this very seriously because I couldn't care less if you dislike a character and have a pathological need to justify another one at all costs, just because you can't handle being a fan of a guy who wasn't actually a hero. I usually like characters who are absolute pieces of shit, so I have no problem with this, but it seems that some people take it way too personally.

But I don't care. I don't care if you hate Severus Snape. I don't care if you need to call him a Nazi or a racist or any of those things that are neither true nor have any real political, social, or cultural comparison within the lore of the saga. I don't care if you have to invent that he was a stalker or a harasser when he wasn't, or if you need to say he never showered and was ugly because you have the mental age of a five-year-old. I don't give a damn.

There is something beyond fandom, beyond personal taste, and beyond internet wars, and that is the fact of JUSTIFYING a sexual assault.

So, as someone who, due to life circumstances, has spent several years in therapy, had to go to therapy precisely because of being in relationships involving violence and abuse, and who also has training in the prevention of gender-based violence, sexual violence, and sexual abuse, I am going to extend an act of courtesy to all these people who, either out of ignorance, lack of knowledge, or simply because they have empathy shoved up their ass, are denying that certain things constitute sexual violence. I will provide a free lesson on this very serious topic, because I am seeing people who literally have the same discourse as the average potential abuser who denies violence unless the victim is half-dead in a hospital. And I will explain why this view is so incredibly problematic.

This post is going to be long, guys, so get ready:

Sexual violence is a complex phenomenon that encompasses much more than rape. There has been a concerning trend of minimizing or even denying certain forms of sexual violence. This has a serious impact on both society’s perception of these offenses and the struggle of victims for recognition of their suffering. I'm gonna address what constitutes sexual assault from a legal, moral, and psychological perspective, why it is problematic to deny or minimize it, and how such denial not only discredits victims but also contradicts the very principles that many people defend in other areas.

1. What Is Sexual Assault and What Acts Does It Include?

Sexual assault is not limited to rape. In general terms, any sexual act committed against a person’s will, without their consent, or through coercion can be considered sexual assault. This includes non-consensual touching, forced exhibitionism, sexualized verbal harassment, and, in some cases, acts that involve public humiliation of a sexual nature, such as forcibly stripping someone against their will.

From a legal standpoint, different jurisdictions have established that sexual violence does not require penetration to be considered an offense. For example, the Spanish Penal Code, following its 2022 reform, specifies that any act that violates a person’s sexual freedom without their consent is considered sexual assault. In other countries, similar legislation reinforces the idea that rape is only one form of sexual assault but not the only one.

2. The Importance of Consent

One of the key elements in determining whether an act constitutes sexual assault is consent. Consent must be explicit, informed, and voluntary. It is not merely the absence of a "no" but the presence of a "yes" that is free from coercion. In cases such as forced public stripping, the lack of consent is evident, and the humiliation imposed on the victim has an undeniable sexual component, making it an act of sexual violence.

Moreover, the perpetrator’s intent is not the determining factor in classifying an act as sexual assault. That is, the aggressor does not need to have a sexual intent; what matters is the impact on the victim and the nature of the act itself. This is a fundamental distinction in criminal law and forensic psychology.

3. The Psychological Impact of Sexual Violence

Sexual assaults have devastating consequences for victims. Various studies have shown that people who suffer this type of violence may experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, shame, and loss of self-esteem. In cases such as forced stripping, there is an added element of public humiliation that can generate an extreme sense of vulnerability and helplessness, with lasting psychological effects.

When it is denied that these acts constitute sexual assault, victims’ suffering is minimized, and their experiences are delegitimized. This is particularly serious when denial comes from individuals who identify as human rights advocates, as it perpetuates the very structural violence they claim to seek to eradicate.

4. The Minimization of Sexual Violence and Its Implications

Denying that certain actions constitute sexual violence has multiple negative consequences:

It minimizes victims’ suffering: By denying that something is sexual violence, victims are told that their pain is not legitimate or that their experience is not valid.

It discredits years of feminist and legislative struggle: For decades, feminist and human rights movements have worked to ensure recognition of the multiple forms of sexual assault. Denying these assaults is a step backward in these advancements.

It reinforces a culture of impunity: When sexual assault is justified or minimized, it contributes to a culture in which these acts are neither socially nor legally sanctioned.

It implies victim-blaming: Denying that something is sexual violence can lead to blaming the victim for their emotions or for "exaggerating" their suffering, which is a form of revictimization.

5. The Hypocrisy of Justifying Assaults Based on Ideology

A serious issue arises when certain sectors justify sexual violence against specific individuals based on their ideology or social position. It is deeply ironic and hypocritical that those who accuse a person of being a "Nazi" or "racist" without solid evidence then deny that this person can be a victim of sexual violence. This attitude is not only morally reprehensible but also aligns dangerously with historical strategies used by totalitarian regimes, where sexual humiliation was employed as a method of torture and punishment.

Denying sexual violence against someone because of their ideology is, in essence, justifying it. This is not only a form of dehumanization but also contradicts the principles of universal human rights. Legal protections must apply to all individuals, regardless of their ideology, past, or character. Justifying violence based on the victim’s ideology leads to a dangerously fascist stance, the very thing that many claim to oppose.

6. Conclusion about this:

Sexual violence is a structural problem that goes beyond fandom wars or ideological debates. It has real psychological damage, serious legal consequences, and a profound social impact. Denying or minimizing it is not only irresponsible but perpetuates a culture in which victims are silenced and perpetrators remain unpunished.

Those who consider themselves progressive and human rights advocates have a moral responsibility to be consistent in their discourse. One cannot condemn one form of violence while justifying another depending on who the victim is. Sexual violence is sexual violence, regardless of whom it is committed against, and denying it is a betrayal of the fundamental principles of justice and human dignity.

What do you think father voldemort said to him? and was there a conversation? voldemort even talked to harry about his father.

It's pretty messed up to think that Rowling used such sensitive issues as sexual abuse (in Merope's case towards Tom), orphanhood, or domestic violence (in Snape's case) to define the personalities of characters who are either outright villains or morally questionable. In a way, it feels like she's blaming children and teenagers for not being able to move past their trauma, even though these kids had no psychological support, no healthy role models, no real help of any kind. She's essentially saying that if your family is a mess and you turn out wrong, it's your fault. And the worst part is that a big part of the fandom supports this idea.

It’s a very neoliberal perspective, based entirely on individualism and survival of the fittest. There’s no sense of the importance of community, care, or collective support. I think this is also very Anglo-culture: the idea that, well, some people go through hell and don’t become bad, so if you do, it’s on you. That view is incredibly individualistic, deeply capitalist, rooted in the "self-made millionaire" myth and the "if you're poor, it's because you want to be" mentality.

In other cultures, this way of thinking would be unthinkable—or at least not so normalized—because it's understood that the only path to survival is collective survival. There are relational dynamics with deep collective roots. You see it in Mediterranean culture, in Latin American culture, cultures where it's understood that only the people can save the people, and no one can save themselves alone.

Rowling doesn’t get this. That’s why she builds narratives around the lone hero who must face the villain by himself, the chosen one, all those tropes that end up individualizing the protagonist instead of fostering collective effort. And I also believe that this same mentality is why many of her haters don’t realize they fall into the same patterns of thought as she does, when they blame society’s victims for their own fates, instead of understanding that all of it could have been prevented with a good support system to catch them when they fell.