Willow ([info]the_willow) wrote,
@ 2009-10-23 19:42:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry

Current mood: contemplative
Entry tags:thinky thoughts

Twilight & Other Creepy Thoughts
I think I've figured out the appeal of Edward Cullen.

So I'm reading Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women And The Rise Of Raunch Culture and I get to the part about interviews and interactions with teenage girls (yes, white teenage girls, but hear me out - cause I'm also curious if this phenomenon is universal for all girls in the US, or if ethnicity and culture counter-balance)

The author talks about girls conflicting pretty with sexy (I may have mentioned that in an essay somewhere at some point) but the point she raised that I hadn't thought of before, is that between the media crush to be sexy and the abstinence only programs with a 'hush hush, you don't need to know about that' - she thinks girls have no idea of their own sexual desires. They don't know what wanting feels like, they don't know what being sexy FEELS like. They only know sexy as performance with returns of attention.

And suddenly Edward Cullen made so much sense as a heart throb. I don't know if Stephanie Myer knew this when she wrote, or if he and that relationship really was more an unconscious product of her upbringing. But Edward Cullen is a boy who

a) does not require a girl give a performance of / have the persona of sexy

b) in having that requirement, thus allowed Bella to feel want and lust and yearning

c) saw nothing wrong with Bella having those desires, but respected/loved her and so wanted to wait (sex was not the end game)

It's startlingly to me to contemplate that Edward / Bella is the romantic story of the century (at least right now contemporarily) because the heroine is aware of, and is allowed to feel her own desire and have her own sexual wants outside of the social act of the new female/feminine performance of pretty and the hero gives a damn about it.

But that's not the creepy part. The creepy part is that suddenly the Urban Fantasy genre, despite its, to me, soft core presentation, begins to make sense/be feminist/seem political. These characters are women in leather with guns who allow themselves to feel both arousal and power.

Obviously not everyone will do that well. And some (LKH) will in fact lose sight of that in all the combinations of screw partners and unpolished writing. But UF as a social response to the message that girls are sexy and act sexy but never mind their pretty little heads about feeling want, desire, sexual or sexually empowered for themselves - that is, not thinking of themselves as experiencing sexuality the way a man might - makes sense, even as I sigh and scowl and pout at realizing it is actually serving a social purpose.

UF, showing women they don't have to give up being sexual beings to have power, and that being a sexual being is about a woman's own desires, not her potential attractiveness to a man.

Who'd a thunk it? (I'm betting at least 20% of my flist actually. 'Cause sometimes I'm behind the curve)

ETA: 10/27/2009 - Anonymous people showing up in my journal talking about how 'safe' the male of colour character was in the Twilight series and how they'd never before encountered the noble savage buck who protects (or tries to) the white woman, even from herself - your comments will be deleted. Get the hell out of my journal space and go read an educational book on race and colonial theory.

ETA 3: Twilight fans also need not reply here talking about hateful single feminists (I'm not a white, middleclass cis het woman, so how the fuck could I be a feminist) and who knows what other hogwash. ETA 2 is a comment down below about ignoramuses being deleted immediately.

_____________

And two comments from 24.228.89.97?

The first one telling me to chill on race, and then when I don't, I get a second full of vitriol and inability to rationalize?


(Post a new comment)


[info]inkstone
2009-10-24 01:19 am UTC (link)
The Twilight series is problematic on so many levels but I'm convinced that the reasons you outlined above are why it's so popular, even though there's a good chance a fair portion its target audience doesn't realize it. Not only does it feature a protagonist who's allowed to feel her own sexuality, that very same protagonist doesn't accept the love interest's statement that "it's for your own good that we can't be together" -- as if she has no right to input in the making of that decision.

So yeah, that is one thing the Twilight series got right. Even if it makes me grimace to say so.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]the_willow
2009-10-24 01:38 am UTC (link)
*double nods* On the owning of sexuality being under the radar.

But I remain convinced it's why it has such a HUGE fan following. And why many fans are likely convinced that people criticizing the book as a work - JUST DON'T GET IT. Not that they get it consciously themselves, but they're responding to the revolutionary concept (for their generation? the last 2 generations?) that love can involve this thing called desire (vs obligation to be pretty1) which can be owned and controlled by them)

I have to admit though - given all the news articles about causal sex between younger and younger teens many of whom don't seem to think of sex with the same train load of baggage of a certain bracket of adults - Edward likely not thinking coupledom auto-equaled all the access he could want of Bella's body combined with his feelings for her NOT being conditional on how much she could titillate him, but actually the opposite? A loud reversal of current cultural messages about what girls should be & offer.

I'm not sure I want to phrase it as 'Twilight got that right' - because it didn't, not totally. The all access might not have been sexual/hands on body. But creeping into her room to watch her sleep? That's all access. And Bella being an empty shell consumed with a need for his attention? That's pretty much what girls seem to be told they're meant to become.

I think Twilight tapped an unconscious need for many teens (and other women) who lacked a way to express themselves and/or wants they've had. The pout for me is in realizing that Twilight's success points out that girls want more for themselves than what popular culture is feeding them. They just lack the stimulation and the vocabulary.

========
.1
Daughter of Delta-Nu
Soon to be fiance
Now that a man chose you
Your life begins today
Make him a happy home
Waste not his hard earned wage
And so he does not roam
Strive not to look your age

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]inkstone
2009-10-25 10:15 pm UTC (link)
Well, yes, there are other problematic issues with the books. The stalking is the most discussed but there's also the glorification of fertility -- the less that's said about Bella's going into labor in the fourth book? Ugh, the better. This isn't to say that motherhood shouldn't be respected but that the books take it to extreme levels: one of the werewolves is infertile and she's portrayed a bitter, hissing crone; one of the vampires protects Bella to the exclusion of all else because Bella can have the child she can't; Edward's "mother" Esme is the ultimate mother whereas Bella's mom is that woman who sent Bella to her dad because she wanted to marry her boyfriend, etc. It's not as obvious in the initial books of the series but it's an undercurrent that really explodes in the final book.

So, I suppose, in a way that owning her own sexuality gets undermined -- in addition to the all-access stalking -- by the fact that, well, a woman's purpose is to become a mother, full stop. And if she can't? Well, there's something wrong with her.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]the_willow
2009-10-25 10:25 pm UTC (link)
Hmm, in a way the book's popularity and unconscious connection is probably all the more powerful for having that unexpected ownership of sexuality happening amidst all the other awful trappings that match popular/media produced culture.

It's step 1, step 2, step 2 and a half (what? OMG!), step 3, step 4 for same old, same old.

The books I've been reading? I've been pausing a lot and thinking of the messages going on and I think it's best summed up by this episode of Target Women concerning Brook Shields.

Is Paris Hilton going to be able to pull a Brook Shields and go from sex symbol to mom symbol? I don't think so. The choices being given to girls these days seems to be Sex Pot or Prissy Prude. With Sex Pot leading directly to MILF (who comes in various flavours; earth mother milf, soccer milf, rocker fashionista milf, old school milf (with cookies and warm milk), etc...

Hmm, now that I see it written out, I find myself wanting to snark 'Pick a Brand. Any Brand' with an additional 'OMG, Bella's No Logo!' which then makes me crack up at the possible irony of SO. MUCH. TWILIGHT. SWAG.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Here from meta_roundup, by the way!
[info]rubyfruit_pixie
2009-10-25 03:08 am UTC (link)
...I have never thought of it that way. Ever. Despite the other creepy aspects of Twilight (namely Edward exhibiting all the signs of an abusive boyfriend and this being seen as healthy and wonderful), seeing this pointed out, I at least get, in part, why people like the books so much, even if I still think that there are troubling things with the series.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Here from meta_roundup, by the way!
[info]the_willow
2009-10-25 03:41 am UTC (link)
The more books I read about the current generation of youth culture and the messages being projected by the media (while reflecting on what I see happening around me) - the more Twilight makes sense as a phenomena.

Like I've been thinking on the abusive/possessive boyfriend aspects that I found so alarming just when they were being discussed (I have not read the book, only excerpts - lots of excerpts given people kept talking about it).

Being 'HOT' is the new pretty, which encompasses a measure of performed sexuality and titillation in body language and dress. But that's just the messages sent to girls! Boys are supposed to expect that level of exposure and effort from girls and then act unaffected and cool because it is their due right.

Edward gets affected by Bella. He responds to her, apparently despite his initial attempts not to respond to her. He feels confused and agitated by his own responses.

When was the last time media told boys they were allowed to be confused about hormones and attraction and emotion? When was the last time media admitted that boys can sometimes crave/want attention too; perhaps by one particular individual.

The stalking is still creepy as hell and I do not want to make this about 'THE INNER LANDSCAPE OF THE OVER POSSESSIVE SO'. But I'm starting to think Edward specifically not being a - "Yeah, whatever, bitch keeps calling me, I gotta play the field, it was just a hookup, blah blah blah' - is a huge deal. Bella is not a living doll, an orgasm distraction or an accessory for him.

Which is sad, if that's what the teen landscape is right now. No wonder there's shock when others go 'But that's crossing a boundary / that's stalking / that's inappropriate/ that's dangerous'

I'm scaring myself in that I think I may end up reading it to see how Jacob gets positioned in the books along these lines of thought. I don't want to assume Jacob represents the teenage boy who's earthy and lusty and direct and unthinking of the girl's feelings and desires (more acting on feelings, less learning to accept and master them) I only have hearsay on that forced kiss. And my opinions about the skeezy race issues involved in that juxtaposition.

But if that's the reason there are many references of him being the more regular guy - it would be telling and interesting.


So yeah, HELL YEAH still filled with issues (so. many. issues) but less incomprehensible to me at least.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Here from meta_roundup, by the way!
[info]rubyfruit_pixie
2009-10-25 04:08 am UTC (link)
Thing is, I tried reading it. Oddly, Twilight Fever never hit it big where I live, at least. The writing itself is kind of dull and couldn't hold my attention after a few chapters.

When was the last time media told boys they were allowed to be confused about hormones and attraction and emotion? When was the last time media admitted that boys can sometimes crave/want attention too; perhaps by one particular individual.

Never. Which is a depressing fact in itself.

You know, minus the creepier parts of Edward's character, he's actually not a bad guy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Here from meta_roundup, by the way!
[info]seriousfic
2009-10-27 04:31 am UTC (link)
When was the last time media told boys they were allowed to be confused about hormones and attraction and emotion? When was the last time media admitted that boys can sometimes crave/want attention too; perhaps by one particular individual.

...Dexter?

Although he is a serial killer, so... yeah.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

here from meta-roundup
[info]copracat
2009-10-25 05:07 am UTC (link)
I've been trying to find an article I read some time ago but failed. The writer proposed that one reason Twilight was so popular is that it reversed the ordinary boy and girl relationship. Bella doesn't have to control her own or Edward's sexuality. She can express hers safely expecting Edward to keep them both on the straight and narrow. Apparently girls are normally expected to control male sexuality and have none themselves so this is a new experience for young women. (I wasn't that kind of girl, myself.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: here from meta-roundup
[info]the_willow
2009-10-25 05:35 am UTC (link)
When ten year olds are being marketed thongs that say 'Who needs a credit card', sexuality gets less nuanced. If sexuality is being promoted as attitude and fashion and how to be pretty/how to get attention, when is there time to squeeze in the concept of; sexuality is about a woman's own wants and desires.

Not expecting her to titillate/perform for him and being accepting of the fact she has her own wants and desires - that a mutual attraction involves an internal life on her part - yeah, novel experience. I don't know if there's more there involving her being able to 'safely express' because he's in charge; That's an interpretation of what we see.

I'm talking about looking at the relationship on the surface; Bella expresses want. She's identified it. She owns it / it's hers. She knows what actions will appease it. And Edward says - yeah, that's true, but getting in your pants is not my #1 priority, we don't have to act out our attractions that way, I'm not all about a notch and a score. You can have your own sexuality separate from doing things to activate my own.

Now it's probably beyond effed up that girls are identifying longing, want, yearning and sexual desire with Twu Luv. As if the only time they have sexuality of their own is when there's Twu Luv. But if 12 yr olds are snapping their thongs at boys for attention, to be seen as desirable because acting sexy equals being pretty which equals being liked, the mere concept of depth to attraction, to things internalized, is probably pretty whoa.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

here from metafandom
[info]dharma-slut.dreamwidth.org
2009-11-10 07:16 am UTC (link)
(and hi) Well guess what, you've given me a reason to read the books! At least-- the first one.

I'm a writer of hardcore sex, myself... But writing softcore seems to me to be worth it, if that is what it takes, to present this particular role model to young women-- an intrinsically sexual being who doesn't need to prove any damn thing...

Sarah Rees Brennan (http://sarahtales.livejournal.com/) (I first discovered her as a Harry/Draco slash writer of extraordinary skill but those are offline now) has her first YA published, called "the demon's lexicon." She has some good thinky thoughts about women and girl characters and what we expect from them. More than that, the sequel is written from the girl's POV. And she's got the first chapter on her lj right now...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: here from meta-roundup
[info]karenhealey.livejournal.com
2009-10-26 06:30 am UTC (link)
I also read a really great article somewhere which noted that while in many ways Bella fulfills standard gender roles - she cooks and has no ambitions outside romance - she is sort of astonishingly independent for a teenager. She decides on menu choices (which is something I would have KILLED for as a teen), she decides with whom she'll live, and when she gets married at 18, both her parents, who married way too young, are okay with it because she's so mature.

So I think a combination of that independence plus her place as the sexual aggressor adds up to a great deal of the appeal.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here from meta-roundup
[info]the_willow
2009-10-26 02:27 pm UTC (link)
I'm not sure sexual aggressor is the right term - or at least not the right/best context given we're talking about girls being pressured/persuaded to act a certain way and having that way be described as being 'sexually liberated'.

Bella's not thong-snapping, last I'd heard, or shaking her rear in Edward's face or trying to mimic strippers and/or lap dancers. But she is connected to her own feelings - not sure I'd say she's in control of her sexuality because she is a teenager and I think part of the attraction leads to relationship thing is surprise.

But I haven't read the book.

She does come across with the potential to control her sexuality, seeing as she's allowed to admit she has one.

Of course then comes 'You can only express that sexuality within the boundaries of marriage - > and then will come baby, cradle and all.'

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: here from meta-roundup
(Anonymous)
2009-10-27 12:04 am UTC (link)
This is ide_cyan. Forgive me for commenting, but I think the post the above commenter is thinking of may be this one:
http://helen-keeble.livejournal.com/74065.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]la-vie-noire.dreamwidth.org
2009-10-25 05:51 am UTC (link)
Huh. That's very much interesting, so much that I want to link this on my journal (with your authorization obviously).

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]the_willow
2009-10-25 02:24 pm UTC (link)
Sure for the linking.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

here via la_vie_noire
[info]afrai
2009-10-26 04:00 am UTC (link)
between the media crush to be sexy and the abstinence only programs with a 'hush hush, you don't need to know about that' - she thinks girls have no idea of their own sexual desires. They don't know what wanting feels like, they don't know what being sexy FEELS like.

This feels very true of the young women I know and the girls I knew growing up. There's this idea that sex and especially sexual desire is a thing for men -- men want and have sex; women give into their demands.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: here via la_vie_noire
[info]the_willow
2009-10-26 02:44 pm UTC (link)
sex and especially sexual desire is a thing for men -- men want and have sex; women give into their demands.

As I say down below Twilight is tricky in that it accepts Bella as a sexual being in her own right, just before it boxes her in as a wife and mother.

I'm beginning to ponder the intentionality of that more than I did before. Because of that two steps later of 'wife and mother' and some of what I've read about the precepts of Meyers religion/religious beliefs which seemed to say a wife's sexuality is controlled by her husband. In which case Edward was just getting Bella used to the idea.

It's... kind of Eve the temptress to be controlled by Adam, which is not as popular in mainstream (USian) culture as much as 'boys will be boys with their cocks which rule the sexing and women should learn self defense and be careful and on guard'.

In which case it's not novel at all, it's old fashioned thinking that the generation reading has somehow never been introduced to before.

Crap this is even more complex than I'd originally thought. Though it still puts the UF sub genre in context for me.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: here via la_vie_noire
[info]dysprositos.livejournal.com
2009-10-26 10:24 pm UTC (link)
It's... kind of Eve the temptress to be controlled by Adam, which is not as popular in mainstream (USian) culture as much as 'boys will be boys with their cocks which rule the sexing and women should learn self defense and be careful and on guard'.

So, IANA historian and all, but I have heard (principally I think from Bellatrys) that the whole "[white upper-class] women are too dainty and delicate for sexuality, we must protect them from the ravening lust-filled manbeasts!" concept is a relatively recent (i.e., Victorian-era) phenomenon, and that before that it was the "women are lust-filled sex machines whose sexuality we must be careful to keep all locked up and guarded by men lest we have a Garden of Eden repeat" (and, yes, Garden of Eden story was used as an example of the downfall of men due to women thinking with their crotches) idea that only really seems to get any traction anymore when people are sighing over Girls These Days.

Coincidentally, I was attempting to Google up information on precisely this topic (pre-Victorian-era views of female sexuality in the English-speaking West) just yesterday, with no success. Everyone wanted to post essays on Much Ado About Nothing and King Lear and stuff, and not even useful ones, and Wikipedia's section on human female sexuality is just atrocious. So, yeah, no evidence or anything, just rumors that Historian People Say that the view of women's sexuality as being the dangerously out-of-control type used to be the excuse for policing women's sex lives before the more modern "I just don't want you to be taken advantage of by those nasty boys!" vaguely-menacing concern-trolling became popular.

(Which makes me wonder if the feeling of relief Edward-as-gatekeeper engenders--I can be as sexual as I want, and not have to worry about things going further than I'm ready for [because things aren't going anywhere at all]!--will turn to frustration when it becomes apparent that it's just trading in one form of sexual repression for another. [I want it, you want it, what's the holdup? Trust me not to get in over my head, please!] I mean, is "you shouldn't be getting any, and I'll make sure you don't" really that much of an improvement over "you shouldn't be getting any, and it's your job to make sure you're not" once the novelty factor wears off? At the end of the day, you're still not getting any! Is it just a "change is as good as a rest" thing?)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]the_willow
2009-10-26 11:41 pm UTC (link)

1. If there's a fantasy of being able to explore what it means to be sexual with the right/perfect boy who doesn't let things lead to 'loss of virginity' (do note I didn't say PIV intercourse on purpose) - I'm not sure what would knock the glow off of it to reveal it to be another method of control. The current methods of control aren't being recognized right now because everything framing them as control has been so co-opted and diluted and irradiated by consumerist purpose and pressure.

Seriously - pay a lot of money for underwear that doesn't even cover everything HAS to be a capitalist dream where what's being bought is not the scrap of cloth so much as the large wedge of lifestyle that's been assigned to said scrap of cloth. And that lifestyle is labeled as 'liberate your crotch, we're post-feminist now and sex positive, the more naked you are, the freer. Woot! Shake your boobs for the camera!'

No where in there is there a damn thing about feeling desire or want. There's nothing to connect the actions with the brain as the major sex organ.

So no doubt the concept of a teenage boy as the 'warden' for a girl's own sexuality throws a diaphanous sheet of maturity over him - that sparkles. Along with making him supposedly 'safe' vs 'those other boys'. But are teenage girls in general capable of recognizing their own likely survival mechanism of dissociation from their bodies?

And wouldn't it require two individuals who were actually hung up on abstinence in order for there to be frustration in the first place and not a girl being taken advantage of due to some guy deciding that too far is just after he gets off?


2. I wish I knew just where we were right now. It's not quite (white) Women As Temptresses or (white) Women As Pure & Chase & Fragile. It's some kind of inbetween Dollhouse where girls aren't always aware their actions are sexual invitations but they're also not aware of their own desires. One woman in what I was reading didn't understand why she couldn't sleep with people she no longer found attractive.

So it's not even quite Innocent Temptation; with all the naughty, none of the guilt. It's very much The Perfect Doll. Where apparently men supply the intent?

Which leads me right back to fans falling in love with the concept of a guy allowing them to have feelings. Maybe believing Twu Luv also magically makes it ok to have feelings in the first place.

I would rather not get depressed to think of History as Men's Search For The Perfect Guilt Free Orgasm That's Not Masturbation.

3. Meanwhile I have a difficult time thinking of teenagers actually engaging in 'We shouldn't be getting any and if you really like me, then it's your job (the boy's) to make sure we're both merely frustrated' without thinking of a fledging generation of orgasm deniers which gets scary when one thinks about how submissive teen girls are being taught to behave towards men in the first place.

PS: Maybe I'm wrong and we've just swung back to women's sexuality is out of control that's why we need to legalize what they can and cannot do to or with their bodies because we know better than the hormonal, skimpy clothes wearing horn hags.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: here via la_vie_noire
(Anonymous)
2009-10-27 01:20 am UTC (link)
Baby Historian here, all my books are 130 miles away right now, but I recall one particular primary source where women were described as "a temple over a sewer" in reference to their sexuality. Googling that might bring something up. There was also the medical belief that women had to orgasm in order to conceive a child, which meant that men felt obliged to work at it, but also that rapes which resulted in children were considered consensual because "hey! she got off!"

In Chaucer's "The Wife of Bath's Tale" there's an interesting depiction of a woman being moved by sexual desire which you could possibly read some things into about the wider culture. I believe Norton's Anthology of women writers has some references in its intro to moralistic medieval plays which depicted women as lusty, sex hungry creatures.

You can read a a really interesting article that explores historical variation in ideas of gender and sex here (http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2LA6xG3RtYSMTQxOWE2ODktNTk4MS00NmM3LWFiOGMtYjJmZjVhYzgxZjg1&hl=en).

-mswyrr @ LJ

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: here via la_vie_noire
[info]elspethdixon.livejournal.com
2009-10-27 08:09 pm UTC (link)
Coincidentally, I was attempting to Google up information on precisely this topic (pre-Victorian-era views of female sexuality in the English-speaking West) just yesterday, with no success.

Sex Among the Rabble: An Intimate History of Gender and Power in the Age of Revolution, Philadelphia, 1730-1830 (http://www.amazon.com/Sex-among-Rabble-Revolution-Philadelphia/dp/0807856754) by Clare A. Lyons, goes into that transition in detail in one section of the book, with quotes from period ballads and jokes printed in 18th century almanacs, to demonstrate the switch between "women are naturally lusty, so men must control them" and "women are natural pure and chaste -- unless they're dirty, dirty whores -- so men must protect them." There's some interesting stuff about class as it related to sexuality and marriage in there as well.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: here via la_vie_noire
[info]nextian.dreamwidth.org
2009-10-29 05:55 pm UTC (link)
Try Hawthorne. Rappaccini's Daughter, for one thing ... the luscious, lusty garden which is heavily signified as a vagina, but all the flowers are poison. Hawthorne kinda had his own issues, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Abstience Only Problem #efftyeleven
[info]the_willow
2009-10-26 02:35 pm UTC (link)
Triggered by my thoughts here on Twilight's message of 'Marriage Is The Rightful Cage For The Sexuality You Feel/Own'.

Not quite random thought.

Surely, other folks have noted the abstinence only crowd are effectively telling same sex loving folks that they NEVER get to express their sexuality because many states in the US don't allow for marriage - yes? I wonder if it's been noted that position hurts their message as much as teens going 'But the rest of the world is all sex, sex, sex.' since SGL folk have sisters and brothers and cousins who're all 'Well, my family member deserves to be happy so that message is but so much bullshit.'

A compounding of the problem of getting teenagers to believe and relate to a message of abstinence only. Huh, that message does seem as if the people giving it don't live in the same world as everyone else where sex sells cars, deodorant and calorie free soda.

My semi randomness a factor of pondering Twilight as an abstinence only propaganda tool - while it accepts Bella as a sexual being in her own right, just before it boxes her in as a wife and mother.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Abstience Only Problem #efftyeleven
[info]rubyfruit_pixie
2009-10-26 11:49 pm UTC (link)
A compounding of the problem of getting teenagers to believe and relate to a message of abstinence only.

That in itself would be interesting to read or write about. I think I want to ponder that...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]hanachan01.livejournal.com
2009-10-26 09:49 pm UTC (link)
I can see what you are saying, but I have to disagree, sort of. Bella might be allowed to have a separate sexuality, but whenever she attempts to come on to Edward, she's shown in a foolish light by him and Meyer. Similarly, the Edward and Bella relationship, at least on Bella's side, is all about physical attraction, with a little bit of the thrill of mystery mixed. It's equating sexual attraction over actually love based on non-physical things. Bella's sexuality is the only thing she has in her and Edward's relationship. It might be a step forward that she has one at all, but it's still not good enough.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]the_willow
2009-10-26 10:17 pm UTC (link)
1. Bella might be allowed to have a separate sexuality

2. at least on Bella's side, is all about physical attraction


I'm actually not debating the measure of the Edward / Bella relationship. Nor am I saying that sexual attraction alone is the end all be all of anything. I am just pointing out that what I see pressed on young girls these days - does not allow for them to have a feeling, pulsing sense of their own sexuality as related to their own wants and desires; outside of performing attractively/titillation focused actions for the arousal of men/males.

And I have two comments above, one directly above your own actually, where I query what the message could be that a girl is allowed to have a sense of her own wants and desires as long as it is controlled to be handed over to her husband (assumed heterosexuality) upon marriage.

My main thing was in trying to figure out why the romance is so beloved by the current youth girlfans of today and my conclusion was that there is a lack of media messages saying it is alright for a girl to feel desire and want. There is a lack of any message suggesting that sexuality can even be a feeling and not a behavior, fashion, attitude, cocktail drink.

So I reasoned that perhaps the fans are falling for the concept of a guy who does not demand his girlfriend act the barely legal porn star as somehow proof of her desire for his attention. And that it is possibly a new concept that a girl can feel sexual as something for herself.

Whether or not that's the best interpretation of what happens in that story wasn't and isn't my point. My point was - hey, I just thought of this interpretation and it could explain a lot of the fan craze, at least to me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2009-10-26 10:24 pm UTC (link)
That is a valid point. But Bella is just so exceptionally frustrating to me because so much of her focus in book two (which, admittedly, is as far as I got before I gave up in disgust) was how Edward felt about her.

I did really like "The Mortal Instruments" for that reason, though.

(I am grav_ity on livejournal and I thought I had an insanejournal account, but apparently I don't)

(Reply to this)

LISTEN UP HONKEYS
[info]the_willow
2009-10-28 03:23 am UTC (link)
ETA: 10/27/2009 - Anonymous people showing up in my journal talking about how 'safe' the male of colour character was in the Twilight series and how they'd never before encountered the noble savage buck who protects (or tries to) the white woman, even from herself and that a 'forced' kiss between a male character of colour and a white woman 'isn't really a big deal' - your comments will be deleted. Get the hell out of my journal space and go read an educational book on race and colonial theory.

Or shoot yourself in the head. Whichever gets your stupidity out of the world fastest.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: LISTEN UP HONKEYS
[info]das_dingsi
2009-10-28 05:28 am UTC (link)
Whoa. I went away for a few days and now I find THIS. Holy crap. I'm so sorry you had to deal with so much racist, misogynist bullshit.
(Plus bonus pregnancy celebration out of nowhere in another comment because "most" women of course want teh babiez. Must not forget that!)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: LISTEN UP HONKEYS
[info]the_willow
2009-10-28 05:37 am UTC (link)
Bonus pregnancy celebration out of nowhere indeed.

Philosophy, philosophy, sociology - philosophy, history, psychology, english lit, cervical mucus plug!

.. Wha?

The 'Jacob was a nice coloured boy' is too wtf to even think about. Y'know, some people will just stew in ignorance till they die and that will be their legacy.

2009 has just whittled away any patience I had in dealing and made me begin to recognize the sound of that lack of patience in other people's 'WTF! Better get you some learning!' remarks at my own cluelessness.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2009-10-28 03:37 am UTC (link)
I have to say that it's offensive to those of us who have chosen to become wives and mothers to hear that we have "handed our sexuality off to our husbands" or to have heterosexuality assumed and imposed on us. Speaking for myself, my sexuality, which is not heterosexual, is my own, and being married and a mother has not changed that. It's fascinating that staying single and childfree is somehow considered a more feminist act than being partnered and having children. I think saying that Bella's sexuality was boxed in by her marriage is a lazy argument and one that does not take into account the reality of women's lives.

bicrim on LJ

I thinks it's clear that Meyer has Bella get pregnant before she is changed into a vampire because she sees it as an important experience, one that Bella shouldn't miss. And that is not wrong, nor is it anti-feminist. Motherhood _is_ important, to our culture as well as to the vast majority of individual women. Not all women want to be mothers, obviously, and good for them, but most do. That is more than OK, it's a good thing, one to be celebrated, not denigrated. I think it's incredibly privileged, classist, and misogynist to posit a childfree lifestyle as more liberated than motherhood.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]the_willow
2009-10-28 03:48 am UTC (link)
Ok, ignorant people? Stop trying to bring up arguments I'm not even DISCUSSING. Where the hell did you people learn discourse, debate and communication? Kindgergarten?

"I query what the message could be that a girl is allowed to have a sense of her own wants and desires as long as it is controlled to be handed over to her husband (assumed heterosexuality) upon marriage." < -- That is a discussion of a possible message within a text; based on the initial premise of my thought in the original post.

That is not a personal life philosophy intended to insult wives and mothers and whatever other bullcrap you wrote that I wasn't going to hurt my brain reading because the preceding words showed an obvious inability to do critical reading and thinking.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]the_willow
2009-10-28 04:38 am UTC (link)
And two comments from 24.228.89.97?

The first one telling me to chill on race, and then when I don't, I get a second full of vitriol and inability to rationalize?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

HEADS UP HONKEYS WHO CAN'T READ & ARE OFFENDED
[info]the_willow
2009-10-28 03:55 am UTC (link)

All Further Anonymous & Ignorant Comments Deleted Unread



Write your own damn post if you're unable to read and critically analyze the point I was pondering and riffing on (reexamined and reexplained several times in comments); The point which was about a phenomena of sexual identity and desire as a possible novel experience for a new generation of girls.

In your own post, you can pitch a fit, wine, moan and wank all you want about mean bitches who have no respect for motherhood and who knows what other fuck-ed up idea has gotten into your head.

(Reply to this)


[info]tigresslilly
2009-10-29 02:05 am UTC (link)
This post made me think of the south park episode where the Jonas Brothers are portrayed as pawns of Disney selling sex to little girls while the whole thing was "safe" and clean because the Jonas Brothers wear purity rings and promote virginity. There's all these scenes of girls being aroused by the boys and not realizing that's how they feel.

I don't know how true it is that young women don't differentiate between pretty and sexy. I don't know where that confusion would come from either. I mean I know where I was as a young adult but I'm not going to pretend for a moment that my feelings were natural.

I guess I have trouble contemplating a scenario where the man deciding a woman's sexual level whether it's to wait or to have sex, could be a good thing. Sexuality is complicated and mired with pitfalls created by society, media, and the self but a person needs to know what they are comfortable with on their own terms.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]the_willow
2009-10-29 02:24 am UTC (link)
I don't know how true it is that young women don't differentiate between pretty and sexy. I don't know where that confusion would come from either.

The thing these days seems to be whether or not someone's hot. Pretty is almost outdated as a term. And being hot is loudly associated in culture; commercials, tv shows, movies, music, etc... with sex. To be hot, is to be sexy.

Pretty is closer to saying "You look very nice, dear."

I still need to look up the quote to see if someone really did describe the bombardment of Baghdad as 'sexy'. But the changing of language is happening in some unexpected ways.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]inkstone
2009-10-29 08:29 am UTC (link)
I don't know about the bombardment of Baghdad, but I work in the science field and I regularly hear principal investigators say, "This area of research is very sexy," which was jarring the first time I heard it. It still is; I still prefer "This is a hot area of research" but as you say, language is changing.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]tigresslilly
2009-10-29 01:47 pm UTC (link)
This is what I'm talking about. Pretty, hot, sexy, and attractive are all interchangeable adjectives now that mean something along the lines of good new or exciting. The excitement part is not always (or at least I thought not always) supposed to be meant in a sexual way even when someone uses the word sexy.

I can see where this might cause confusion with youth who are learning about their body and their desires. On the flip side I can see where this might leave them open to anything being sexually arousing and they are free to pick and choose. I mean whether you just think something is neat or whether you think its sexually stimulating, the adjectives can all be the same.

I think some of it is just that people aren't ready to talk about what does or doesn't turn them on in a public forum, so they use those words sometimes when they mean sexually interesting and sometimes just when they mean regularly interesting. It's not a good thing, but it doesn't have to be terrible either.

(Reply to this) (Parent)



[ Home | Update Journal | Login/Logout | Search | Browse Options | Site Map ]

[Error: Can't use an undefined value as an ARRAY reference at /home/lj/cgi-bin/LJ/PageStats.pm line 99. @ earthquake.insanewebhosting.com]