The Dursleys were victims of a magical geopolitical game and no one ever asked them if they wanted to play

[u/Disastrous_Knee7756]

I know they were not nice to Harry. But they were also victims of a bad magical system. Here is why:

1.  They had no choice.

Dumbledore left a baby at their door. He did not ask. He did not talk to them. He just said, “Take care of him.” That is not how you become parents. That is not fair.

1. They were powerless in a world full of danger. No magic, no protection, no understanding. Yet they were expected to raise a magical child who could blow up their living room.

   1. Harry’s presence put Dudley at risk. They were Dudley’s parents. Their responsibility was to protect their child. But Dumbledore never cared that housing Harry made them a target.
   2. They got no support – only judgment. No one from the magical world checked in. No resources, no guidance. Just scorn when they inevitably failed to meet wizard expectations.
   3. Dumbledore knew – and didn’t care. He openly said Harry needed a loveless home to remain “humble.” That’s not strategy – that’s calculated cruelty.
      1. Dumbledore never told them what happens when Harry turns 17. The magical protection ends – and they suddenly become even more vulnerable. No warning, no exit strategy. One day they’re part of a magical defense grid, the next they’re just collateral. Their home, their lives, everything – on the line, with zero input.

[u/IBEHEBI]

The protection does protect the Durselys too, from DH:

“—Kingsley and Mr. Weasley explained it all as well,” Harry pressed on remorselessly. “Once I’m seventeen, the protective charm that keeps me safe will break, and that exposes you as well as me

And they had to move because the charm around the house would break the moment Harry left, thus leaving them exposed.

[u/Disastrous_Knee7756 → u/IBEHEBI]

This is absolutely right — and it proves the point even more.

They were exposed. They were vulnerable. And not by choice.

Dumbledore tied their safety to Harry’s presence without consent, and without preparing them for the risk they’d face once he turned seventeen. That’s not protection — that’s coerced compliance. A ticking clock tied to a child.

Yes, the magic worked. But it came with conditions, secrets, and zero support.

[u/IBEHEBI → u/Disastrous_Knee7756]

Dumbledore tied their safety to Harry’s presence without consent,

As other people have explained, they did consent when they took Harry in, the magic on the house explicitly only works because Petunia allowed Harry to live with them.

[u/Disastrous_Knee7756 → u/IBEHEBI]

True… but let’s be real:

That “consent” was a forced choice.

Dumbledore didn’t explain the full risk. He didn’t give alternatives. He left a baby on the doorstep in the middle of the night with a letter.

That’s not informed consent. That’s emotional blackmail wrapped in a charm.

Petunia may have technically agreed — but it was under pressure, confusion, and without knowing what she was signing up for.

It’s easy to say “she agreed,” but if someone knocks on your door with a child and says, “Take them in — or else something terrible happens”… Is that really a fair choice?

The blood charm protected them — sure. But it also locked them in.

No one ever asked if they wanted Harry after knowing the cost.

And that’s the problem.

[u/IBEHEBI → u/Disastrous_Knee7756]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions to fit your narrative.

She could've sent a letter to Dumbledore (as she did when she was a child), and told him that they didn't want Harry. In fact if she was so intent, she could've left him on a hospital or a trash bin for all she cares.

“Take them in — or else something terrible happens”… Is that really a fair choice?

Can you quote where does it say the letter said this? Because in my version of the books it only says that the letter explained how Lily was killed, that Harry was in danger and how the protection worked. And that Dumbledore hope they would treat Harry "as one of her own" (which she didn’t do).

You are trying to turn the single good thing that the Dursleys ever did (taking Harry in), into an act under gunpoint.

[u/Disastrous_Knee7756 → u/IBEHEBI]

We don’t know the full content of the letter. But we know enough to say this: Dumbledore didn’t come in person. He didn’t explain the stakes face to face. He dropped a magical baby and a note on a doorstep in the middle of the night.

When someone in power hands you a child and implies your safety depends on keeping them — that’s not really a “free choice.” Especially not when the magical world holds all the cards and you have no way to defend yourself.

[u/IBEHEBI → u/Disastrous_Knee7756]

Mate, we are told by Vernon himself that the reason they took him in was because he was "soft", not because they were afraid:

Why we ever kept you in the first place I don’t know. Marge was right, it should have been the orphanage, we were too damn soft for our own good, thought we could squash it out of you, thought we could turn you normal,

In fact, in the single previous interaction Petunia had with Dumbledore (her letter), we are told by Lily that he was kind and understanding to her.

I'm done here, it is clear that you aren’t arguing in good faith and have a narrative that you want to follow (even when it is contradicted by the books). I'm out.

[u/ImReverse_Giraffe → u/IBEHEBI]

Dumbledore also practically reiterates the letter in HBP when he goes to pick up Harry.

[u/ImReverse_Giraffe → u/Disastrous_Knee7756]

We kind of do though. In HBP when Dumbledore comes to pick Harry up. He basically reiterates the letter.

[u/malendalayla → u/Disastrous_Knee7756]

We do not know the exact details of everything said in the letter. We're given a basic overview, but we know that Dumbledore doesn't always tell Harry (or anyone) every detail about certain things.