Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
  1.  

    Okay, so I was thinking about the whole ‘safe’ love versus the ‘passionate’ love thing in the context of the Epic Love Triangle, and how the heroine normally ends up with the safe, happy, loving, caring guy rather than the moody, passionate, etc etc guy with whom there is a bunch of spark/frission/etc, etc. Classic example: (A certain musical/book/movie is spoiled)

    So, yeah, I was struck by one thing. In Twilight, Bella ends up with the moody, ‘passionate’ guy and leaves Happy behind, and in the process, inverting the proportion of fangirls who write fics about Moody/Heroine to fangirls who write fics about Happy/Heroine. The thing is, Twilight has vampires who hold Bella hostage and informed danger. Even, sometimes, real danger. The stage is set for a tragedy. And then the happy ending cometh forth. Does this have any jarring effect for you guys?

    Hasn’t Meyer warped the Classic Triangle a little bit? Isn’t Bella supposed to go off with Jacob so that the normal fanfic proportions stay the same way? Interested to know what you guys think, whether it’s yes, no, or stop the tanget before you hurt somebody, Steph.

  2.  

    Um, yeah. Definitely. Let alone the fact that Jacob was the one semi-likeable character in the series (force-kissing aside) and Edward himself repeatedly says that’s he’s so dangerous.

    But doesn’t Twilight invert all the normal rules of the universe anyway?

  3.  

    I find it to be a quite interesting quirk for an otherwise somewhat dull concept. Sure, it might screw up an generation of girl’s ideals regarding relationships, but on the other hand I find it hard to believe that wasn’t already the case since the twilight-craze was able to catch on in the first place. So, if you look past the negative, the suffering of our young lass Bella might have made some people reconsider whether ‘bad’ can really lead one to happiness, and instead find happiness and enjoyment in a more ‘ordinary’ life.

    Just a though.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2010 edited
     

    Eh, I think everybody ended up happy. After all, Jacob didn’t end up “Imprinting” on Bella, did he? So she obviously wasn’t his soul mate. Everything works out because Bella and Edward made squishy twu wuv and made the demon child, so Jacob, Bella and Edward are all happy. Everything works. In other words, there really was no love triangle.

  4.  
    Eh, I think everybody ended up happy. After all, Jacob didn’t end up “Imprinting” on Bella, did he? So she obviously wasn’t his soul mate. Everything works out because Bella and Edward made squishy twu wuv and made the demon child, so Jacob, Bella and Edward are all happy. Everything works. In other words, there really was no love triangle.

    Puppet, your cynicism warms the cockles of my worn-down-by-senior-year heart. :)

    In response to the post, I agree to a certain extent--though Ed says he's dangerous, he himself never actually harms Bella. But doesn't Jacob break her jaw or arm at some point? Plus, with the whole Sam and Emily thing, I actually feel like the werewolves are a bit more dangerous. But it's been years since I read the books, so I could be forgetting crucial examples.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2010
     

    In other words, there really was no love triangle.

    Or there was, and then after it all, Meyer used a cheap way to make the triangle end all rainbows and lollipops. She built up the love triangle for almost four books only to make Jacob look like a weak, useless character in the end. That’s one of the things I hate most about those books, that the ending was all rainbows and lollipops, and neither Bella or Jacob lost any sleep over each other in the end when they’d been angsting about how in love they were for several hundred preceding pages.

    ARGH. I HATE LOVE TRIANGLES. And I hate them most of all when they’re done unrealistically.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2010
     

    Well yeah, it was pathetic and unrealistic, making it hardly seem like there was any love at all. Like I said before, if Bella really was Jacob’s twu wuv then he would have imprinted on her the moment he laid eyes on her.

  5.  

    But didn’t he imprint on an unfertilized egg or some other such preposterous asspull? If that’s the case, he should’ve done it from the get-go as well.

    • CommentAuthorDanielle
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2010
     

    I think the reason SMeyer wrecked an epic love triangle is because, while she has absolutely no qualms about inflicting physical pain on her characters, she’s loathe to put them through emotional pain. And when she does put them through emotional pain, she always quickly engineers a way to get them out of it with minimal damage.

    Think about it. With Bella dating Edward, Jacob in love with Bella and Bella torn between the two, SMeyer has set the three of them up for a lot of pain, drama and angst. If Bella marries Edward, Jacob will be left in the dust and may never recover from the emotional damage. But if she marries Jacob, Edward will be left in the dust for maybe the rest of his eternal life and may never recover from having his heart broken.

    Since SMeyer apparently loves her characters too much to let them make difficult choices, she has Bella marry Edward, give birth to a hellchild and lets Jacob fall in love with the infant! Bella dies, becomes a vampire and lives happily ever after with Edward in a cottage where they do what newlyweds do all day! Everyone wins!



    •  
      CommentAuthorJeni
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2010
     

    I’m pretty certain it was just to keep the fans happy. So Team Jacob didn’t go and slash their wrists at the end because Bella was staying with Edward.

  6.  

    Hmm. . . this is interesting. But honestly, is Edward really the dangerous, passionate sort of guy? I mean, he’s definitely marketed as such, with all the “You smell so good! I want to eat you!” stuff. But that conflict only really took place for the first few chapters in the first book. The rest of the time, he’s an utterly safe, protective guy who would never think of cheating or pushing Bella’s limits(!) Even New Moon’s drama about leaving was only for Bella’s ‘protection.’ He acts more like a middle-aged man than a dangerous badboy, methinks.

  7.  

    I would agree, except I think he acts more like a middle-aged woman.

  8.  

    True, sir, true.

  9.  

    I should probably elaborate though. I think you hit the nail on the head, Breeze. Edward is really only the “passionate, dangerous” one if we take him at his word. He really only presents the veneer of danger. If he actually did have a convincing struggle with his urge to kill her, I might buy it. Stow his vampirism for a second and look at the larger picture. Edward is an old-ass man, he’s wealthy, he’s boring, and he needs somebody to take care of.

    Jake, on the other hand, is younger than Bella, has nothing really solid to offer her beyond his sincere feelings(until Meyer wrecks it), no financial security or anything like that. He’s also less demonstrably in control of his affection(forced kiss, etc).

    • CommentAuthorDanielle
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2010
     

    Just playing devil’s advocate here, but you could also argue that Jacob is the safer choice because he’s her father’s choice. In most epic love triangles, the one the parents choose is usually the safer one and the one the girl chooses is the dangerous one. Yes, Edward is older and more financially secure, but he is also—for all intents and purposes—an outlaw. He’s had to move countless times and change his name to hide his vampirism, whereas Jacob can stay in one place and not have to worry about the government getting suspicious. With Jacob, Bella would have less money, sure, but she would also have her father’s blessing and a sense of stability she probably wouldn’t find with Edward. Not only that, but Edward is pretty much stuck as a hormonal 17-year-old, which means Bella will be stuck as a hormonal 18-year-old for the rest of eternity. Jacob isn’t ageless, so he will mature along with Bella and slowly begin to provide her with a safer life.

    Anyway, that’s my $0.02.

  10.  
    I see your point, Danielle--the only flaw in your argument is that Charlie doesn't really put up a huge fight when she gets married to Edward. He's not thrilled about it, but he doesn't actively stop her, either.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDiamonte
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2010
     

    However, Charlie’s not the type of character to get overly emotional about a situation and therefore actively stop Bella.

    And we could always take Bella as an unreliable narrator who is too self-centered to see how damaged her father is by her actions. =P

  11.  

    This ended up being a surprisingly interesting discussion so far. I had figured this would just be another extraneous Twilight thread.

    That said, I still think Edward is the “safe” choice. I didn’t want to get into theological/cultural stuff, but Meyer’s too amateurish an author to divorce her own writing from her personal background and views(observe her characters’ peculiar Mormon idioms).

    The Edward/Bella relationship echoes a distinct strain in some corners of Mormon culture that romanticizes the concept of child brides(and even child-grooming, in the eventual Jacob/hellspawn pairing). In theory, pairing a younger female with a much older male is done because the older male should be able to “take care of her” better than someone her own age would(it’s probably also tangentially related to missionary work being a primarily male rite of passage, but I’m not familiar enough with the subject to say for sure). If you’re willing to swallow that line of reasoning, or at least believe that Meyer swallows it, that makes Edward the “safe” choice, since he’s totally milquetoast outside of his HAWTNESS and informed dangerousness.

    That’s probably the same reasoning she uses when she forces Jake into a relationship with an infant rather than hook him up with somebody his own age. The age gap means he can “care for her.”

    Yeah, that’s mostly speculation, but I think it’s still pretty plausible.

    • CommentAuthorDanielle
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2010
     

    I see your point, Danielle—the only flaw in your argument is that Charlie doesn’t really put up a huge fight when she gets married to Edward. He’s not thrilled about it, but he doesn’t actively stop her, either.

    True, but then again, nobody in Twilight puts up much of a fight when their lives and/or the lives of their loved ones are on the line.

    And I wasn’t aware of the whole child grooming/ romanticization of child brides thing….but I guess that introduces a new lens through which to view the love triangle. According to that view, Edward is definitely the safer choice. But if you use the more widespread view—that marrying a young girl to a 108-year-old man who hasn’t had a girlfriend in all that time is probably not a good idea—then Jacob becomes the safer choice. Yes, an older man who is more settled in life might be able to better provide for a young girl, and his mature views might be welcome. But why hasn’t he ever married? Why has he never had a girlfriend? At 108, he might be a just a little out of touch with modern teenagers (then again, maybe not; he does still go to high school). What kinds of conflicts will that cause? Will he lose his temper with her over her percieved immaturity? Or will he simply grin and bear it through the first few years of what will probably be a miserable marriage?

  12.  

    Why put so much thought into it when Meyer obviously didn’t? It’s like trying to make Star Wars work according to real-world physics and military strategy.

  13.  
    @ Danielle: I don't know, Ed seems pretty immature. "You are my heroin, I have no self control, whine, whine, WHINE!!!"
  14.  

    Why put so much thought into it when Meyer obviously didn’t? It’s like trying to make Star Wars work according to real-world physics and military strategy.

    Eh, it’s just like working out in a gym. The act of lifting weights itself accomplishes nothing, but you strengthen yourself by doing it.

  15.  

    Eh, it’s just like working out in a gym. The act of lifting weights itself accomplishes nothing, but you strengthen yourself by doing it.

    Interesting analogy. It certainly makes sense when you put it that way.

    •  
      CommentAuthorNorthmark
    • CommentTimeApr 17th 2010
     

    I think Twilight is just a series of missed opportunities. If Meyer hadn’t decided to make everything seem perfect and happy, the premise might have worked. Imagine if some kind of physical fight in Breaking Dawn ended with Bella seeing Edward kill and Jacob dying. Instead of “hooray my sparkly husband and I can live together forever, and the guy who loved me totally accepts our baby!” it could have been “did I make the right choice to stay with a murderous vampire? If I hadn’t picked Edward, would Jacob still be alive?” etc.

    It’s actually fairly easy to write a variation of the saga with a few edits (apart from the fling myself off a cliff to hear his voice stuff etc) that sounds much better than the original, it’s all about putting the emphasis on some of the things (Edward’s overprotectiveness etc) that Meyer skimmed over.

  16.  

    Okay, so I was thinking about the whole ‘safe’ love versus the ‘passionate’ love thing in the context of the Epic Love Triangle, and how the heroine normally ends up with the safe, happy, loving, caring guy rather than the moody, passionate, etc etc guy with whom there is a bunch of spark/frission/etc, etc.

    I’m not so sure Twilight wrecked it so much that it reflects a growing phenomena in real life.

    Isn’t entirely surprising as people (women in this case) have more and more been abandoning rationality for their baser instincts. As the phrase goes: you reap what you sow.

  17.  

    I read the article, and that really sucks. There’s a difference between ‘nice’ and ‘doormat’, isn’t there?

  18.  

    SWQ – I believe it is up to you.

    Yes, I do find it ironic when I hear gals who complain about Bella picking Edward over Jacob… even as they choose an Edward instead of a Jacob in their own lives…

  19.  

    You’re right, Nate, but it’s not as if I’ve ever been in a position to turn down anyone for a date, much less a nice guy. I don’t even have any close guy friends. I talk to them easily enough about school or whatever, but that’s about it. In any case, I’ve always been into the guys I feel I’d be able to talk to, rather than the ‘dangerous’, ‘cool’ guy. I can’t imagine myself really enjoying myself with someone of that type.

    Of course, I might be a hypocrite given the opportunity. You never know.

  20.  

    nice guy + strong personality = yessss!

  21.  

    Never say I am not merciful.

    As a reply to my depressing link before, here’s one that might give you a bit of hope.

    •  
      CommentAuthorDiamonte
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2010
     

    That was a fascinating article, Nate. Thank you. The Return to Modesty book is going on my to-read list.

    How do you dig up such awesome articles all the time?

  22.  

    Isn’t it obvious? Nate lives in the internet.

    • CommentAuthorDanielle
    • CommentTimeApr 26th 2010
     

    Isn’t it obvious? Nate lives in the internet.

    I read a short story like that once.

    Yeah. Didn’t make a whole lot of sense, when you get right down to it.

  23.  

    Wow, that is odd.

  24.  

    How about… one more hopeful article?

    One I dare say might be more than relevant toward Steph’s point.

  25.  

    I like that article a lot.

  26.  
    I wanted to comment on that article a while ago, and never had the chance...I like the article a lot too! I've actually read Female Chauvinist Pigs, and I feel the woman (the woman who wrote the feminism article, not the woman who was critiquing it...I am so horrible with names!!) missed the point of the book. Levy's whole point was that instead of being fed the notion that, in order to be sexually liberated, you must sign up for a cardio striptease class (no, I'm not making this up), women should be allowed to find their own definition of "sexy" and "sexual." Like the article said, we should be allowed to behave in a way we find appropriate, instead of being measured by a yardstick that doesn't apply to us.
  27.  

    Putting “sexual” before anything is guaranteed to make me not care a whit about it. Feminists make such a big deal about how important is is to be sexually “empowered” or “liberated”, when sex is just a conveniently pleasurable system of reproduction. Who cares?

    • CommentAuthorDanielle
    • CommentTimeMay 8th 2010
     

    IMO, sex has been cheapened by overexposure in the popular media. It used to be (in the media, anyway) a Big Thing, something sacred saved for marriage and NEVER shown onscreen, but now it’s just something two people who happen to like each other and/or find each other moderately attractive do when playing Monopoly gets old. Why can’t people develop romance without sex? Subtlety takes more work, sure, but it’s more rewarding. If you want to stretch it a bit, you could almost say sex scenes are the romance writer’s version of soapboxing: Instead of showing us that these two people love each other, they decide to tell us by having them spend twenty pages having sex.

  28.  

    That reminds me of a quote:

    “Don’t go! I’m deeply in lust with you!”

  29.  

    I agree with Danielle, though sometimes curiosity and hormones try to argue with reason.

  30.  

    I think Nate brought up the point a long time ago that many authors try to use sex as a romantic crutch, in lieu of actually developing the love between the characters. Like he said, it’s lazy and usually ineffective.

  31.  

    I think LFM hit the nail on the head about determining one’s own standard. One of my best friends in HS and college was a girl who was more sexually aggressive/active than any guy I’ve ever met. IMO she was bizarrely much purer/more wholesome than a lot of the girls who weren’t as active, because she was just being herself. She didn’t do what she did out of desperation for acceptance or daddy issues or a lack of self-respect, she was just a legitimately free spirit, as fruity as that term is.

    I agree about sex as a crutch in fiction. It happens far too often that characters headed in a romantic direction have sex prematurely and suddenly they’ve got saccharine twu wuv that rings hollow.

    I actually have a scene like that in my story, though, about two-thirds of the way through.

    •  
      CommentAuthorlookingforme
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2010 edited
     
    What I think a lot of romance writers don't understand is that sex DOES NOT ALWAYS EQUAL LOVE, especially not true love. My English teacher always said that all great literature is either about death, love, or sex, and he was always very careful to separate love from sex. I think people have known this throughout the ages--just because you're attracted to someone doesn't necessarily mean you'll fall in love with them, and therefore, it's better to get to know the person before you sleep with them. Sex and love, in my humble opinion, should go hand in hand. I think in any healthy relationship, there is equal parts of friendship, love and lust, as Helen Fischer claims. But Hollywood and romance writers, by writing sex scenes to tell us about (not show us) the deep and meaningful wuv the characters have for one another, are taking the sex-love complex even further by substituting love with sex.
  32.  

    sansafro, I think maybe we have different definitions of purity and wholesomeness. No offence to you or her.

    @LFM:

    I think in any healthy relationship, there is equal parts of friendship, love and lust, as Helen Fischer claims.

    I agree. Although I think sex should come after marriage. It should be, as Danielle says, sacred. Not something you do with every next girlfriend or boyfriend. Otherwise, once you finally find the right person and marry them in a way it’s too late because you’ve already given a part of yourself away, and the really special person hasn’t been the one to recieve it.

    •  
      CommentAuthorlookingforme
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2010 edited
     
    @ Steph: Do you know how hard it is to find people who share this mentality??? (I agree with you, by the way, I just wasn't brave enough to say it...) Even my good friends roll their eyes when we get to this topic (as all teenage girls at sleepovers do), because they know that I will immediately start ranting about how I SO WANT True Love to come my way (though, of course, he will have to wait for me until I finish my PhD in English Literature, hehe), and I refuse to settle for anything less.

    That being said, I have friends who have lost their virginity, and while I don't really have the right to condemn or condone their choice, I always feel a bit sad. Usually the person they did it with wasn't someone they were in love with, or, in some cases, someone they even liked. They did it because they felt pressured, or felt their virginity wasn't useful to them anymore, or were bored and had nothing better to do (this is more the case in my hometown than in Paris, as there really isn't a ton of stuff to do there...) My point, I guess, is that you should have the freedom to have premarital sex or abstain--but I do find it hard to understand why people would do it for any other reason than love (or attraction). Though I'm probably just being naive.
  33.  

    I know why people do it, and sometimes I even feel a little inclined to think I might do the same (fortunately, I’ve never had the opportunity). I want true love too- one of my best friends had never been kissed, and a month or so ago started dating a guy who I’m pretty darn sure is her soul mate. He’s the only person she’s ever kissed, and I really envy her that, even though kissing isn’t a “big deal” in the grand total scheme of things. Of the guys I’ve kissed, I only don’t regret one of them, and he is…well, he’s borderline.

    But. Being touched is very, very pleasant. If two people are friendly and start touching a bit, I can understand how that can escalate. That is the reason I generally turn down backrubs unless they are from a good (usually female) friend, because every time a guy has given me a backrub I end up having a crush on him for a couple days. Being touched is nice, and sometimes it feels stifling to lack any physical connections with others. Hence the impetus for sex. That would be the reason to do it other than love, because being touched feels nice. And apparently orgasms are a lot of fun.

    • CommentAuthorDanielle
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2010
     

    I think in any healthy relationship, there is equal parts of friendship, love and lust, as Helen Fischer claims.

    While I agree that relationships are equal parts love, friendship and desire, I think that desire and lust are different. Desire I would define as a sexual attraction between two people in a committed relationship, while I would define lust as an almost obsessive attraction to that person.

    Or, to use an example, desire can be seen in the relationship between Bob and Helen Parr (or Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl, if you prefer). They hug. They kiss. They throw teasing glances across the room. It’s clear that they find each other attractive, but their desire for each other doesn’t overwhelm their better judgment. Their relationship is balanced.

    An example of lust would be Edward and Bella. They want to have sex so bad that they cuddle in bed, make out, do nearly everything short of intercourse, and finally get married so they can have sex all day long. Even Bella was surprised when they were able to stop. Aside from being unhealthy, this relationship is unbalanced, and lust has usurped friendship and love.

    TL;DR: Desire is finding your spouse attractive in a healthy way. Lust is wanting to have sex all the time. Lust isn’t a part of love; it’s a cheap counterfeit.

  34.  

    Lust isn’t a part of love; it’s a cheap counterfeit.

    Well said! I agree. :D

  35.  
    @ Danielle: I agree too!
    •  
      CommentAuthorAdamPottle
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2010
     

    True love is overrated. Looking for it sets you up for isolation, disappointment and self-loathing.

  36.  

    True love is overrated. Looking for it sets you up for isolation, disappointment and self-loathing.

    True love isn’t overrated. It’s just that people, for some reason, think that they can find it without any effort on their part.

    •  
      CommentAuthorsansafro187
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2010 edited
     
    In addition, I think people(especially women), tend to have unrealistic and sometimes bizarre definitions of what constitutes true love. If you need some measure of proof, just google one of those vomit-inducing lists of things The Perfect Guy does. The Perfect Guy is assumed to be a prerequisite for the Perfect Relationship, and of course True Love always results in the Perfect Relationship.
  37.  

    Okay, I found one, looked, and vomited. Seriously, who wants a man who’s ‘not opinionated’? That takes out all the fun out of everything!

    On the issue of sex, I’m not necessarily into the whole ‘wait until marriage’ thing, because I’m not really sure that I want to get married, looking at my parents’. And though it’s not top on my priorities, I figure that I want to experience sex at least once in my life. However, I would definitely only do it with a person I’m committed to, that I’ve been with for at least a year or two.

  38.  

    What’s the list of a ‘Normal Guy’? Seriously, all we ever hear about is how the Perfect Guy isn’t realistic, but what IS realistic?

  39.  
    @ Steph: I personally think that the Perfect Guy thing differs from person to person. I've always thought that most people are born with a "blueprint" of the sort of person they would be happy with in their head, and (if they are very lucky) they find that person later on in life. Basically, there is no one Perfect Guy or Girl--different people have different definitions. Maybe that's why those lists are so bizarre--they are a compilation of different people's desires, and therefore must be really confusing and contradictory.

    And also, when I say true love, it's not that I believe that there's only one person out there for everyone. I think there's at least one person out there for everyone, but the blueprint we have can be compatible with several people.

    And I agree with Dan that true love doesn't happen just because you wish for it really hard. Not that that has prevented me from wasting several pennies on several wishing wells.
    • CommentAuthorDanielle
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010 edited
     

    As far as the whole Perfect Guy thing goes, I do think there is probably at least one person out there that you’re compatible with, like LFM said. You can be compatible with more than one person, but I think you’re meant to be compatible with only one person—in other words, I think monogamy is the best way to go. Building a life with one person takes….well, a lifetime; imagine how hard it would be to build a life with several people!

    And with the so-called Perfect Guy…..well, I’ll just repeat what my youth pastor once said:

    Instead of looking for the Right One, become the Right One.

    I think that too many people spend all their time looking for the Perfect Guy or the Perfect Girl and not enough time becoming the Perfect Guy or the Perfect Girl. I think that if you work on getting yourself ready for a relationship, you’ll have a better chance at making that relationship work when it comes along.

  40.  

    Danielle, tell ur youth pastor from me that he wins.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010 edited
     

    That isn’t quite how I see it. I think in some ways you can become more right for someone. But I also think that not everyone is compatible. A certain amount of compatibility is necessary. A relationship should be easy in some ways. It shouldn’t be a continual slog uphill, that isn’t how love works (in my mind, anyway). Some work yes, but not a continual battle or war. It should be natural, just have occasional problems. Suppressing annoying habits or making compromises is one thing, but you shouldn’t change who you are for someone else.

  41.  

    What I got out of that was just to learn to be more willing to compromise, to share, to be tolerating of others’ faults, etc etc etc. Relationship skills, not necessarily personality traits.

    • CommentAuthorDanielle
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    @ Willow,

    It’s true. Some people just aren’t compatible, and no matter how hard you try, the relationship won’t work. If you aren’t compatible, it may not be such a good idea to be/ stay together. But love will always take work, and I feel like some people just aren’t prepared for that. They expect love to always be flowers and ponies, when it’s really more like tending a garden.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    Tending a garden.. hmm. I think that might work, in that some people have luck just scattering seeds wildly, then weeding, while others are meticulous in their planting and care.

    •  
      CommentAuthorarska
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    I, personally, am not so gung-ho on the wait until marriage thing, especially lately it’s become a big bandwagon thing that will fade when the Jonas Brothers die out. Neither of my parents were virgins when they married, and they accept that one day, I will have sex. They just want me to be safe and old enough to make a mature decision on it. It’s one of the reasons I’m really glad I have parents like I do. When I say “mature decision” I mean, quite frankly, I would want a committed relationship. I’m with SWQ. I want it to have been ‘exclusive’ for at least a year or two before I would consider sex. The truth is, is I honestly don’t see how sex is such a big thing. It’s just the urge to mate, made pleasurable so we actually do it. (Wow, now I sound like Dan.) Plus, so often I have seen people who do the ‘wait until marriage’ thing (While it is started and meant in the best possible way) often get married prematurely so that they can have sex, and it often leads to some pretty bad marriages.

    Onto the whole The One TM business, I don’t really believe in that. I want to find a guy who is not afraid to tell me when his opinion differs, and is smart. Maybe if he would wrestle with me too, that’d be great. :3 There. Done. I don’t want someone I can walk all over, because then I wouldn’t respect them, and I don’t want a guy who is a self-obsessed ass. I have a friend who has this HUGE ASS list of everything she wants in a guy, and whines because she can’t find a guy who has all 73 things. Seriously. 73 things.

    Also, I think dating is fun, but I don’t think (Or maybe I’m just jaded or something) that people should take every High School relationship they have so seriously, and be all ‘ONE DAY WE’LL GET MARRIED’ Because it seems completely unrealistic. Just think, now people live until at least 77 years old. (Just average life-expectancy rate) You are 18-1 when you graduate. There is about 60 years with that ONE person. I don’t know, but to me, you need to be really careful making a decision like THAT.

    • CommentAuthorDanielle
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    Tending a garden.. hmm. I think that might work, in that some people have luck just scattering seeds wildly, then weeding, while others are meticulous in their planting and care.

    Never thought of it that way. I guess some people are better with surprises than others. Some people work deliberately, making sure it both produces good food and looks nice, while others simply sow the right seeds and take it as it comes, not caring if it looks a little haphazard or if the tomatoes grow a little too close to the pansies. And that’s the way it should be. People are different, so shouldn’t love be a little different, too? People should have the freedom to make it work however they like—so long as it works.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010 edited
     

    I like your extension of the metaphor :3

    Arska, I totally agree with a lot of what you said. It is hard to respect a guy I can walk all over. I don’t mind others not waiting until marriage, for me it’s partially a trust thing as much as a moral thing. And I’d like to note that I’m conservative in general and loathe the Jonas Brothers and their ilk. The purity ring thing is obnoxious. Sure, I’m waiting until marriage, but I am not going to flaunt the fact. It’s no one’s business unless the subject comes up.

    Also, the virgin until marriage thing tends to be a good litmus test for whether a guy is serious or an ass. Reasoned argument or discussion on the issue is fine, but if it is a dealbreaker, then the girl is better off without him.

  42.  

    The purity ring thing is obnoxious. Sure, I’m waiting until marriage, but I am not going to flaunt the fact. It’s no one’s business unless the subject comes up.

    THIS. I can’t stand the things; they’re intolerably self-righteous. Believe it or not, it’s possible to be pure without shoving it in everyone’s faces.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    I know! And a lot of the ones who flaunt their purity rings end up having sex outside of marriage anyway (annoying filthy hypocrites).

    • CommentAuthorDanielle
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    I don’t think (Or maybe I’m just jaded or something) that people should take every High School relationship they have so seriously, and be all ‘ONE DAY WE’LL GET MARRIED’ Because it seems completely unrealistic.

    My mom told me the exact same thing when I was sixteen. (In my house, you’re old enough to go on double dates at fourteen; old enough to go on single dates at sixteen.) She sat me down and said “Look. Dad and I think you’re old enough and mature enough to handle a boyfriend, if you decide to have one, but keep in mind that you’re only sixteen. Your personality is still changing, and your brain isn’t completely developed yet. Whatever boy you decide to date won’t have a fully developed brain until he’s at least twenty-two. So don’t take any relationship you have super seriously. Keep it pure, of course, but don’t be upset when it ends—because it will end, sooner or later, and if you end up getting married, I’ll be surprised.” I think too many high schoolers take dating way too seriously, like they’re all expecting to get married once they graduate. Some people do that, and it does work sometimes. But more often than not, you wake up on your twenty-third birthday and realize that the person you married at eighteen isn’t the same person five years later.

    I know! And a lot of the ones who flaunt their purity rings end up having sex outside of marriage anyway (annoying filthy hypocrites).

    I wanted a purity ring for a while—more because they looked pretty than anything else. But then I realized….you know, I don’t plan on having sex until I get married. That’s not going to change. Not only that, but I’m not a huge fan of wearing rings, so I’d just take it off before bed, let it fall on the floor, panic, and search my room frantically until I got it back. So why bother? I just won’t have sex.

  43.  
    I don't have much to say besides the fact that I agree...religion or vows don't seem to stop people at my school from sleeping around. I have a friend who wears a ring with a cross on it, yet is totally OK making out and grinding with random guys. And I have another friend who acts like everybody else, but has decided she wants to go to a Catholic college, because her religion is important to her. I feel like those who are OK with waiting for sex are those who don't need to shove it in your face.
    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    Yep. No matter what you got (be it intelligence, cuteness, or purity), don’t flaunt it. If you got it, don’t flaunt it. Flaunting often means you don’t have it, just think you do.

    • CommentAuthorDanielle
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    If you got it, don’t flaunt it.

    Exactly. If you flaunt it, people will hate you—which makes it tough to convert other people to your cause.

    •  
      CommentAuthorarska
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    Danielle, can I tell you just how much I love you? And WW? Because, I seriously. Love. You.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    Group hug!

  44.  
    Awww, I want to be a Teletubby too!!! (You know how they say "group hug!" all the time? I'm so odd...)
    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    ....I hate the Teletubbies.

    But still, group hug!

    To return somewhat to the original thread topic, does it seem odd to anyone else that passion and safety seem to be mutually exclusive in the classic love triangle? I would think it would be ideal to have safety and passion.

    •  
      CommentAuthorarska
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    I think that they should change the classic love triangle though. I think that they should be fun and serious, I mean, I would have a hard time choosing there. xD

    glomps WW, Dani, and Lookingforme

  45.  

    This thread seems oddly apropos today. The Girl of sansafro187’s Past announced her engagement to some guy today. I know you’re supposed to feel happy about it, but me, I can’t really say that I do.

    Oh well, shit happens.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    Another interesting contrast would be physical versus intellectual.

    Is glomped

    Oomph!

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    I think we have a love square forming here… and they are all girls.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMoldorm
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    It’ll be interesting to see whether Twilight wrecks the way the epic love square is supposed to conclude, too.

  46.  

    What’s so “epic” about a love triangle?

  47.  

    •  
      CommentAuthorDiamonte
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010 edited
     

    Gotta join in on how much I agree with Willow/Lookingforme etc. I don’t have much to add except I’m surprised by how much we have in common on our thinking concerning love and such.

    •  
      CommentAuthorarska
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    I know, Dani.
    I thought I was the only one.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAdamPottle
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2010
     

    I daresay Mssrs. Wolf and Pire two posts above have curious sideburns.

    • CommentAuthorNo One
    • CommentTimeMay 11th 2010
     

    Wahahahaha yeah I agree.

  48.  

    What’s so “epic” about a love triangle?

    I was being slightly sacastic.

  49.  

    I was being slightly sacastic.

    Ah. I couldn’t tell.

  50.  
    I agree with Willow--I mean, when I have a boyfriend (and I WILL have a boyfriend (David Sedaris says that claiming things in a loud, obnoxious voice assures that the event will happen, but I've only been able to muster up the energy to whine, "I hope I get a 7 on my history paper," so I'm trying a new tactic today...)) I would like to feel all comfy and safe, like when I'm cuddled under the blanket with my sister watching Legend of the Seeker, but there's a difference between feeling safe and loved, and being...bored. Which seems to be the case when Bella's around Edward--I would get super bored if I were her. All they ever talk about is their "deep" love for each other. If by "deep," you mean "the depth of the little puddle in my back yard." It's a small, SMALL puddle.
    • CommentAuthorDanielle
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2010
     

    All they ever talk about is their “deep” love for each other. If by “deep,” you mean “the depth of the little puddle in my back yard.” It’s a small, SMALL puddle.

    VERY small. What SMeyer seems to not understand is that love goes through seasons and stages of maturity, and that love is founded on more than just “I have a head.” “OMG! I have a head too! Let’s be in love!” It needs common ground, with just enough differences to make things interesting.

    Not only that, but true, mature love is very different from the kind of love SMeyer seems to believe in. There’s a song called “Mirrors and Smoke” which I love because of its perspective on love. Part of it goes “You will always want me/ And I’ll always want to leave/ Even though I cut your wounds/ You still deny they’re real.” It acknowledges that people in love will hurt each other. There will be pain. But the thorns are worth the roses, to continue with the garden metaphor. Further on, it says “Baby don’t you cry ‘cause I got it all figured out/ You always make me sad but that’s what true love is all about/ Rivers never fill the oceans but oceans always feel/ The waters reaching deep inside them, I guess they always will.” No matter how much you love the other person, it will never be enough to complete them, because people are imperfect and our love is imperfect. But If you both love each other and show it, that’ll be enough.

  51.  
    Awww, that's both very deep and very sweet!

    I was discussing this very topic with my middle school teacher when she came to Paris. She said that she felt like Bella and Edward's rather Cathy-Heathcliff like relationship was supposed to mature, but all SMeyer managed to do to mature the relationship was have them marry each other and have sex. Plenty of married people do not have mature relationships (perhaps the reason for the very high divorce rate?), and sex can be damaging to a relationship if the two people involved aren't mature enough to deal with it. Which Bella clearly isn't--her meltdown before doing it with Edward is completely unrealistic. I mean, nervousness is expected, but she has to almost drag herself out of the bathroom in order to do the deed.
  52.  

    (perhaps the reason for the very high divorce rate?)

    Statistics in action

  53.  
    Haha, very funny. But I see your point. Actually, now that I think about it, I have very few friends whose parents are divorced...but I don't really know that many people...anyways *ends total derailment of thread*
  54.  

    ends total derailment of thread

    As thread creator, I tell thee:

    Don’t worry about it. In fact, keep going. This is interesting.

  55.  

    In that case, I might remark that I know a lot of kids whose parents are divorced. Maybe it just depends on where you live. I’m in Southern California, so that might be why…?

    • CommentAuthorNo One
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2010
     

    I know that about 55% of students at my school have divorced parents. I doubt it’s got to do with wherever we live.