Not really. According to this study (link is to a PDF) of teens in the UK (ages 15-19), 51.5 percent say they are not active. In France, 7.9 percent. Germany, 87.6 percent. In Poland, 64.1 percent. In Belarus, 37.7 percent. Total for European teen sexual activity: 49.5 percent are not active. Interestingesly, the numbers are almost exactly the same for those living in cities vs. villages.

So, is Fleur sexually active? Probably. Is Harry? Slightly higher possibility that he is not.

But, I'll leave you the last word so this doesn't turn into a thread derail.

---------- Post automerged at 07:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 AM ----------

I doubt that's a name change. More than likely, it's a mispelling unless there's particular attention given to the change.

 

Wow, only 7.9% of teens in France are NOT having sex? Why didn't I grow up there?

 

They're very conscientious about contraception.

 

Yeah, we have plenty of educational programs for these. I remember we had people talking to us about condoms and pills when we were in 6ème.

6ème = 6th grade in the US = Year 7 in the UK

 

This brings up horrible memories for me. In private school in the US people thought that talking about sex was horrible so they kept to the tradition that sex waits for marriage. If they only went into the bathrooms after hours they would have learned something new.

 

I'm personally tired of every other fic using magical oaths (and having them end with "so mote it be" is even more irritating). Though it's partially JK Rowling's fault for including something so stupid as the Unbreakable Vow. Both would solve too many problems for there ever to be any tension. Hell, the wizarding world would be a utopia. The ministry could just require everyone take a vow not to break the law or kill, rape, rob, etc. And trials would be as simple as having the defendant take a magical oath that they're innocent.

 

Well... the Unbreakable Vow is canon. I explain it away as a result of corruption - rich people like the Malfoys paid a lot, a long time ago, to make sure it wasn't used in a way to prevent their planned crimes.

 

Who the hell would ever agree to that? There's not a single country in the entire world, even in the most fucked up police states, where a death penalty is given for shoplifting, and there certainly isn't any place in the world where the citizens would willingly swear to kill themselves if they ever commit a crime. If a government tried to pull that shit, just how long do you think they'd remain in power before someone decided that they kind of liked not having Damocles's Sword hanging over their heads and just started a revolution? Not to mention that said government is elected. Kind of hard to keep your constituents happy if you tell them enter a suicide pact.

Like, what part of that sounded like a good idea?

 

Yes because most people when applying for citizenship or similar would have a problem with promising not to rape a child. What a horrible idea.

Alternatively it could make for a good dystopian world where a regime uses hostages as leverage to force people into unbreakable vows to serve the state (like North Korea with their concentration camps for family members of dissidents).

 

One could word the unbreakable vow in a quite safe way for trials: "I will answer all questions I do answer with the truth for the duration of this interrogation/for the next 30 minutes".

 

Because unbreakable vows are easy, cheap, safe, and thats why they're use all the time in canon.
Oh... wait.

 

Can't believe we're even having this debate. Why're we having this debate? Forcing people to make unbreakable vows is just all kinds of wrong no matter how good an idea it seems. I won't bother arguing here because there is nothing that can rationalize this. Taking away someone's free will is the worst violation imaginable.

 

What dangers do they have in canon? How would they be unsafe and expensive when used for trials in the way I mentioned above?

They are not used in canon because JKR didn't really think things through. Just like Dumbledore taking a broom before she thought of apparition or floo travel.

Though I doubt Snape needs one to help mercy-kill Dumbledore, so unbreakable vows could easily be struck from canon without changing Harry Potter in a significant way. Though when you start down that route, where do you stop?

 

You stop after getting rid of all of HBP and DH.

 

Pretty much with you on this. The only thing I truly liked from those last 2 books was the idea of the Horcruxes, I can't remember anything else important happening in 6th year besides the ending and the 7th pretty much just covered the pre mentioned Horcruxes.

 

Yeah, but we know nothing about them. They are used a grand total of once, and apart from that one scene, we really don't have a lot of reference for what they are, their limitations, or any solid facts about them- other than if you break it, you die.
The only other real knowledge comes from Ron, and even then, it's a very small amount.

Also, this argument has already been done- there's a rather large plot point in forging the sword about free will.

 

My personal headcanon is that the key to the Unbreakable Vow is that it requires the person asking for the Vow, the Vow taker and the bonder, and that if the person taking the Vow breaks it and dies, so does the person asking for the bond.

Narcissa was willing to risk her life to save her son and thus was willing to risk the Vow to make sure Snape protected him. Could you ask the same of Ministry workers and Deatheaters? No one would be willing to risk their life to enforce someone elses loyalty.

Personally I'm fond of the concept that powerful magic has its price.

 

Irrespective of what exactly an Unbreakable Vow actually is, expecting Unbreakable Vows to be used in trials is naive

Why do we have laws against self incrimination? Why do we have privacy laws?

It's not simply a matter of Unbreakable Vows not having any dangers, or Veritaserum being negated by Occlumency, but rather has more to do with an individual's rights.

"I will answer only truth for the next 30 minutes" has so many problems. What if unrelated questions were asked? What if the subject doesn't know the actual truth, but perceives it to be.

Unbreakable Vows could be used to force people into certain actions instead of gathering information, but that has it's own problems, like suppressing free will.

I don't know why so many people think of Unbreakable Vows as the ultimate solution. Even from what we actually know about them, they're not perfect.

 

Of course they are not perfect, but they are a great tool - like for preventing innocents getting sent to prison or even executed. Should they be used for everything? Certainly not. But when someone's life is on the line? Or an entire country?

Dumbledore making an unbreakable vow in order to convince the Wizengamot that Voldemort has returned could have changed history, and saved countless people.

 

Not really, because vowing to tell the truth means nothing if what he believes is wrong, which everyone believed because he was portrayed as insane.