![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
draggonlaadyWisdom from 4-chan. Frighting concept, I know.
"Seriously, Twilight has conditioned a legion of prepubescent girls into believing that obsessive/possessive behavior and objectification of women is not only acceptable, but also romantic as fuck. Stephanie Meyers has done the sexual deviants the world over a huge favor."
I suppose I should get around to reading this book, just to see how bad it really is.
"Seriously, Twilight has conditioned a legion of prepubescent girls into believing that obsessive/possessive behavior and objectification of women is not only acceptable, but also romantic as fuck. Stephanie Meyers has done the sexual deviants the world over a huge favor."
I suppose I should get around to reading this book, just to see how bad it really is.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-10 05:49 am (UTC)No, don't do that.
Trust me.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-10 05:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-10 10:37 am (UTC)Plus, I have to add that while I haven't read the book I'm irritated at the fact that it sounds like the the person who wrote the against it blurb automatically labels anyone who likes the idea of something that doesn't fall into their sexual category as a deviant. I suspect they might label anyone who likes BDSM as a deviant too - lots of objectification there. - Maybe I'm just super sensitive to that word. The book was written by a mormon - I doubt it's any worse than any other love story where the common theme I'm obsessed with you - which basically is any monogamy based love story. "I love you so much I don't even want to look at anyone else."
But again, I haven't gotten around to reading the book, I've just had it recommended to me by several people.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-10 01:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-10 04:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-10 04:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-10 04:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-10 04:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-10 04:26 pm (UTC)Also, the above comment was in regards to the part in the book where he breaks into her house and sneaks into her bedroom to watch her sleep. As I understand it (not having read the book yet, as already stated) they were NOT dating, and she barely knew him at that point. I don't think that falls into anybody sane's definition of fun and happy relationship behavior, much more in line with stalking and creepy. (And really, did you think that I would be so hasty to call possession and objectification horrid? Have you met Bruce and me? :P )
Also, I still maintain that if they're only a little dangerous and they sparkle in sunlight, they're not vampires, they're PIXIES. Which is fine, right? Write a love story about pixies, whatever. Just don't call them Vampires!
no subject
Date: 2009-11-10 05:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-10 06:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-10 06:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-10 10:21 pm (UTC)magical realist formula + LDS = Twilight
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 05:15 am (UTC)*sigh*
Although, . . . "magical realist formula + LDS + LSD = Twilight" would certainly explain the *s*p*a*r*k*l*y* vampires.
Then again, I have a thing for glitter and a firm belief that (s)he who dies with the most glitter *wins*! (Scarily, I may be in the lead there.) ;-P
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 10:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 12:17 pm (UTC)Lol at the Vampixies!
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 04:15 pm (UTC)