Why is Edward not allowed to gatekeep his own chastity? SURE HE CAN! Except, he's not doing JUST that, he's also gatekeeping Bella. He carries her everywhere, he stalks her, he watches over her while she sleeps. If it was just a matter of his gatekeeping his own sexuality, then why even have a relationship with Bella at all? Within the text, it's also clear that Edward does want to consummate the relationship as well, but he doesn't dare because she's human and thus fragile and crushable and, you know.
Yes, it is indeed trashy fantasy, but these fantasies don't occur within a vacuum. What, really, is wrong with reminding ourselves of this little fact? I read single-title romances and write schlocky fiction, but I still do this knowing that I'm working with a specific cultural code.
As for this: "Which kind of brings me back to my original gripe that women's fantasy gets dragged through the coals like no male fantasy ever would."
It all comes back down to current structures, wherein male fantasies are perfectly normal and thus not criticized in mainstream critiques, whereas female fantasies are aberrant (http://tigerbeatdown.com/?p=579). I also have no clue what you're reading, but Shakesville has an entire series (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/07/apatowcalypse-now-party-like-its-1899.html) dedicated to critiquing Judd Apatow flicks. The Hathor Legacy also does regular critiques of male-centric fantasies, in both books and film. We don't do this to find fault with women or men, but to point out how all these fantasies continue to reinforce the status quo that keep the gender binary intact.
As for the "most stories are about the money" - well, they used that line of reasoning as an excuse to NOT have women-centric stories, to NOT have women leads. And Twilight has turned that on its head - if stories really are about the money, why don't we see a slew of Harlequin movies? (http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-discriminate-if-it-doesnt-profit/) (OMG clearly I just hit on a brilliant money-making enterprise.)
no subject
Yes, it is indeed trashy fantasy, but these fantasies don't occur within a vacuum. What, really, is wrong with reminding ourselves of this little fact? I read single-title romances and write schlocky fiction, but I still do this knowing that I'm working with a specific cultural code.
As for this: "Which kind of brings me back to my original gripe that women's fantasy gets dragged through the coals like no male fantasy ever would."
It all comes back down to current structures, wherein male fantasies are perfectly normal and thus not criticized in mainstream critiques, whereas female fantasies are aberrant (http://tigerbeatdown.com/?p=579). I also have no clue what you're reading, but Shakesville has an entire series (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/07/apatowcalypse-now-party-like-its-1899.html) dedicated to critiquing Judd Apatow flicks. The Hathor Legacy also does regular critiques of male-centric fantasies, in both books and film. We don't do this to find fault with women or men, but to point out how all these fantasies continue to reinforce the status quo that keep the gender binary intact.
As for the "most stories are about the money" - well, they used that line of reasoning as an excuse to NOT have women-centric stories, to NOT have women leads. And Twilight has turned that on its head - if stories really are about the money, why don't we see a slew of Harlequin movies? (http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-discriminate-if-it-doesnt-profit/) (OMG clearly I just hit on a brilliant money-making enterprise.)