
I was forced to watch the film "Twilight" last night. Yes, I know, it sounds like something the eighth amendment would take issue with, but it happened, and that's it. I have actually wanted to blog about Twilight for quite some time, but thought my refusal to read the books or watch the movie disqualified me as a legitimate critic (although that didn't stop me from tearing
500 Days of Summer to shreds). The film was awful. The first half hour was pretty funny, but after that I couldn't wait for it to end. It was kind of like when my sister and I watched "Titanic" for the first time and she said, "When is the boat going to start sinking?" and then once the boat started sinking, she said, "When is the boat going to sink?" The script was so badly-written Kate Winslet couldn't have saved it, from "The lion fell in love with the lamb," to "Come on, spider-monkey!" to "Clair de Lune is great."
What is the appeal of this series? As Christine Seifert posits in her excellent essay,
"Bite Me (Or Dont)" Bella is in no way in control of her own body in the series. She is completely dependent on Edward's ability to resist sucking her blood
and taking her virginity. I don't know about you, but this seems like a pretty shady message to be sending to 13-year old girls. Find a guy who wears Burberry coats, likes
Debussy, and just wants to talk! He'll keep your virtue safe! Of course,
Stephen Marche in Esquire has suggested that this series is a manifestation of the fact that many straight women want to sleep with gay men by pointing out that Bella is attracted to Edward "because he is strange, beautiful, and seemingly repulsed by her." I find this assertion fairly sexist, but I was really annoyed during the scene when they're kissing, and he jumps back and then they
talk all night, fully clothed. I mean, it's sweet and all, but not exactly realistic long-term unless your Edward is really just not interested in sleeping with you. If preteens expect to find said virtuous contemporary-French-composer-loving stud themselves who will take charge of their virginity, a gay guy might be their best bet.

This brings me to my favorite part of Seifert's essay, in which she defines the great new genre Mrs. Meyer has created:
"The Twilight series has created a surprising new sub-genre of teen romance: It’s abstinence porn, sensational, erotic, and titillating. And in light of all the recent real-world attention on abstinence-only education, it’s surprising how successful this new genre is. Twilight actually convinces us that self-denial is hot. Fan reaction suggests that in the beginning, Edward and Bella’s chaste but sexually charged relationship was steamy precisely because it was unconsummated—kind of like Cheers, but with fangs. Despite all the hot “virtue,” however, we feminist readers have to ask ourselves if abstinence porn is as uplifting as some of its proponents seem to believe."
I think of the Rilo Kiley song "Portions for Foxes" in which Jenny Lewis warns us: "The talkin' leads to touchin' and the touchin' leads to sex/And then there is no mystery left." So the Twilight movie (and the New Moon sequel promises) contains lots and lots of not doing it. I mean think about it, in romance novels, do they get it on right away? Of course not! Why read the rest of the book, right? So you can see why I am annoyed with people who wax rhapsodic about the great values this book/movie promotes when it's selling sex Jonas-Brothers-style ("virginity" rings) and crowning young women powerless. As Jessica Valenti posits in
"The Purity Myth," our society already puts a disproportionate amount of pressure and value upon young women based on the status of their V-Card, (as opposed to the pressure/lack thereof put on young men) but now
Twilight is further suggesting that young women give the key to said young men! Makes a lot of sense.